Talk:GSK rejects three Unilever bids to buy consumer healthcare arm, says unit was "fundamentally undervalued"

This article is a featured article.
It is considered one of the best works of the Wikinews community.
See Wikinews:Featured articles for more information.

Reviewer

Obviously rather sizeable article, I'd love for it to get published in time. @LivelyRatification:, @Chaetodipus:, @Acagastya:, @Cromium:, if you're up for it. --JJLiu112 (talk) 23:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

@JJLiu112: I’ll have a go around Sunday evening (about 15 hours from now), if nobody else gets to it. [₂₄Cr][talk] 00:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

That's great, thanks. --JJLiu112 (talk) 00:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Image: User:Arlid Vågen. and
Image: Arlid Vågen. are the same, right? 2006nishan178713^t@lk 18:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

It's protocol to add User. --JJLiu112 (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Hey @Cromium:, hoping you haven't forgot. Cheers! --JJLiu112 (talk) 17:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Addressing concerns

Raised by @Cromium:: paragraph three the "response to reporting" is important, as it indicates it was in response to the Sunday Times, corroborating with "subsequently confirmed". Unilever website is important, as it serves the same purpose as "according to xxx". Hindustan I forgot to cite the source. Thank you for your thorough review, I believe I have addressed all your concerns, or at the least responded to them. --JJLiu112 (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

By saying "Unilever confirmed "it had approached…"", it conveys that the statement was in response to the reports. I think it makes the sentence a little unwieldy if you leave it in. [₂₄Cr][talk] 22:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

OK. --JJLiu112 (talk) 22:20, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Review of revision 4656975 [Not ready]

Revision 4656975 of this article has been reviewed by Cromium (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 22:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC). Copyright: Not ready: See below. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: This is a well written article but needs some changes. I have left a number of hidden comments to indicate where this is the case. Although it was almost all verifiable, there was one piece of information I didn’t find in the sources (Hindustan Unilever). The only other major issue is the style of the writing. There are several instances of "X reports", "Y understands" snd "According to Z" plus one where we are quoting Reuters, who quote the Sunday Times. Try to eliminate these by just stating the information. Another example is that we don’t need to mention "A brief response to reporting on the Unilever website confirmed…". Just say that "Unilever confirmed…". Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 4656975 of this article has been reviewed by Cromium (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 22:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC). Copyright: Not ready: See below. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: This is a well written article but needs some changes. I have left a number of hidden comments to indicate where this is the case. Although it was almost all verifiable, there was one piece of information I didn’t find in the sources (Hindustan Unilever). The only other major issue is the style of the writing. There are several instances of "X reports", "Y understands" snd "According to Z" plus one where we are quoting Reuters, who quote the Sunday Times. Try to eliminate these by just stating the information. Another example is that we don’t need to mention "A brief response to reporting on the Unilever website confirmed…". Just say that "Unilever confirmed…". Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

@Cromium:: Hindustan in the source from 2 Dec. I will resolve the rest. See talk for why I included "a brief response..." --JJLiu112 (talk) 22:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Review of revision 4657016 [Passed]

Revision 4657016 of this article has been reviewed by Cromium (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: All concerns addressed. 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.

Revision 4657016 of this article has been reviewed by Cromium (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: All concerns addressed. 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.