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

Reviewer
Obviously rather sizeable article, I'd love for it to get published in time. ,, , , if you're up for it. --JJLiu112 (talk) 23:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * and are the same, right? 2006nishan178713t@lk 18:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It's protocol to add User. --JJLiu112 (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey, hoping you haven't forgot. Cheers! --JJLiu112 (talk) 17:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Addressing concerns
Raised by : 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]

 * 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)