Talk:Huel

Too much marketing and PR puff?
Just by reading it and following recent changes, I realized that there might be a "little too much" marketing and PR puff for Huel. I was visiting the site to check for company information since it is an interesting startup, also from a company and online marketing success point of view. However, I think this might be an article that is a little bit too repetitive covering the Value Preposition of Huel.

Let's discuss how to improve this! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihan187 (talk • contribs) 10:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks like significant fluff was removed in October 2018. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:56, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It still feels like it is written like an advertisement. I'm suggesting the "advert" tag (whatever it is called). --Emilhem (talk) 19:51, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Bad reviews
The reviews are mostly negative. Huel is not meant to be without lumps, or to replace all of your meals, but to assist you in a better diet. It's not meant to taste amazingly like your favorite burgher as it's based on plants. You can't make a tasty beef burger from plants, at least no yet. TudorTulok (talk) 14:03, 15 January 2020 (UTC)


 * That last part: Are you saying it's impossible? 66.210.249.135 (talk) 17:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

The Black Edition and version 3.0
It would be nice to mention the Black Edition and the evolution of all of the versions. TudorTulok (talk) 14:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes. Huel seems to have changed a lot since the wave of cited reviews ended in 2017. It would be nice to have less outdated info. 66.210.249.135 (talk) 17:29, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:06, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Huel-product-image.jpg

Products Section
I understand the current product section is mainly first referenced, however, instead of removing it entirely can it be cut down for the time being? I’d like the opportunity to develop the section with secondary referencing.DrJosephCowan (talk) 00:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Necessity of 'criticisms' listed?
I think the controversy cited is absolutely valid, but what are the reviews passing as 'criticism' in the 'Controversy and Criticisms' section doing there? Those are just negative editorial reviews. I would think criticism of the company itself would belong there (blatant hypocrisies, environmental concerns, etc), not individual opinions of the product itself. If that were to be the standard, why not list critical reviews on every company's page? Neuropsia (talk) 12:36, 31 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Right. I agree that putting that food tastes bland in a Wikipedia doesn't make sense. Thus, I've removed it.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 12:38, 31 July 2023 (UTC)