the point in the lede about which members were striking, which was a confusing point due (as best I can work out) to some of the wording in the Guardian article (and I certainly hope I figured it out — the earlier article also indicated the strike would be all PCS people in the Home Office); and
the unverified details in the paragraph about the High Court proceedings, for which the only explanations I've thought of are that either I completely missed a cache of information in a source somewhere, or a source changed between composition and review.
The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.
the point in the lede about which members were striking, which was a confusing point due (as best I can work out) to some of the wording in the Guardian article (and I certainly hope I figured it out — the earlier article also indicated the strike would be all PCS people in the Home Office); and
the unverified details in the paragraph about the High Court proceedings, for which the only explanations I've thought of are that either I completely missed a cache of information in a source somewhere, or a source changed between composition and review.
The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.
