Talk:Reckitt/Archives/2012

Update 16 September 2012
I've updated the article to bring it closer in line with the MOS guidelines, and with the reference articles at wp:companies. Before the changes, much of the article reads like promotional material for the company. Many of the sources are taken from the company's own website or publicity material. The large list of products in the centre of the article is not helpful and is not in keeping with MOS guidelines or the style used FAs. Please don't revert the changes wholesale. Please discuss the changes here on talk. 87.112.91.134 (talk) 14:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I have reverted the changes, many of which were not an improvement. I agree that the article contains some inappropriate promotional content which should be removed, but that does not justify the large scale changes to section order and headings which you attempted to make, neither does "MOS guidelines". We do not, for example, need a heading titled "Bart Becht". Rangoon11 (talk) 14:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay. I'm happy to discuss those changes. I don't mind if we don't have a "Bart Becht" heading, but I do feel that he is very closely identified with the company, and with its fortunes over the past decade, so he merits a paragraph. Regarding the section changes, the list in the middle of article is very unhelpful, not to say ugly. If the article is to have a list like that at all, then it belongs at the bottom, perhaps collapsed. The same is true of the list of directors. I don't feel that the lead paragraph should have "the worlds best-selling..." after each product. Firstly because, the claims are not supported by the references, secondly because it sounds like advertising, thirdly because that information can be found in the article for each product. I see you are going through making changes, so I'll hold off until you're done. 87.112.91.134 (talk) 14:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The article is very much a work in progress and has also suffered from promotional editing. The Operations section is woefully inadequate, it should have far more information about the company's facilities, divisions, organisation etc. The History section lacks some pretty important information and needs development. Ditto the Corporate governance section.
 * The section order and main section headings are for me fine though and pretty standard. It is usual to have an order along the lines of Name - History - Operations - Products/Services/Products and services - Corporate goverance/Corporate affairs - Logo - Sponsorships - Corporate social resposibility - Environmental record - Controversies. I would certainly not favour moving Products right to the end. What we could perhaps do is create a separate article List of Reckitt Benckiser products and just detail the most significant in this article, perhaps just the "power brands".
 * The fact that Dettol, Veet, Strepsils and Air Wick are best selling world wide does seem to me important and of assistance in helping to understand the topic. However I accept that some better citations are needed for the claims. Rangoon11 (talk) 14:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I would be fine with a separate list for the products, or even keeping the list in this article, but collapsed. Maybe we can come up with a form of words for the lead which avoids repeating "...best selling..." after each product, but still notes the market position of some of the brands. I appreciate that the article is a work in progress, as is WP itself :) I'll keep any future changes I make to smaller ones, so that they can be reverted and/or discussed individually. I think the Gaviscon section could be renamed and moved to the Corporate social responsibility section because since the OFT ruling it is no longer a controversy. I feel that the one-sentence paragraphs in the 1999 to present section need to be rewritten. 87.112.91.134 (talk) 15:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm certainly open to other wordings for the products text in the lead. I have renamed the Gaviscon section "Gaviscon anti-competitive behaviour" for greater accuracy. In my view this should not be merged in to the CSR section as that is for corporate initiatives in areas such as charitable giving and the environment, and third party assessments of them, and this was more a case of corporate wrongdoing. In my view the Gaviscon section should be shortened however as is currently of an undue and excessive length.
 * I don't like one sentence paragraphs either but it can be hard to avoid them when dealing with content such as is found in the history section. Any ideas you have for improvements would be good.
 * Yes it is better not to make very large numbers of changed in a single edit as it can then be hard for other editors to separate out changes which they may agree with from those which they do not, with the result that all are reverted.Rangoon11 (talk) 15:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps if we do make a separate article for the products, the lead can say something like "...its portfolio includes household names such as Dettol, Veet, Airwick..." I'll have a look at tidying up some of the single sentence paragraphs. I'm not overly keen on reducing the Gaviscon section because of its size in relation to the article; I'd sooner see rest of the article grow larger. I'll see if I can trim it down a bit, and also make it smaller on the page by merging some of the paragraphs. I have to leave now, but I'll add some of these changes later, to see what you think. 87.112.91.134 (talk) 15:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)