Wikipedia:Peer review/2002 Marib airstrike/archive1: Difference between revisions

I’ve listed this article for peer review because I want to eventually take it to FA status. I’d like a review of the “Aftermath” section in particular to make sure its structured acceptably and flows well. I’d also appreciate a look at the “Airstrike” and “Legality” sections, the latter perhaps from someone who may be better versed in international law and extrajudicial/targeted killings.

Thanks, Hsnkn (talk) 01:33, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Noleander

I’ll be happy to do a peer review on this.

• Article is 6,300 words, which is well under the 9,000 size suggested by WP:SIZERULE

• Clarify Domestic legal experts were generally of the belief… “Domestic” may confuse some readers. Does it mean local to US or local to Yemen? Suggest rewording to make clearer.

• Grammar/wording Both the CIA and Saleh were adamant towards maintaining the operation a secret… “towards” may not be the best word there. Maybe reword whole sentence: Both the CIA and Saleh felt that secrecy was important for the mission ….

• Aftermath: 1st sentence in the “Aftermath” section is Both the CIA and Saleh were adamant towards maintaining the operation a secret: Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage recalled “… But “maintaining secrecy” is something usually done before a mission is carried out. If this sentence is telling the reader that after the attack that everyone was trying to keep the identity of the attackers, then that should be clarified.

• Aftermath: clarify before/after attack Plausible cover-up stories were developed for Yemen to publicly follow … Again, were these stored developed before or after the attack? IF before, then this sentence doesnt really belong in the Aftermath section (or, the wording should clarify that the “developed” happened before the attack).

• Quotes vs encyclopedias voice: The strike “was applauded by many Americans, and also by the media, as progress in the war against terrorism,” and “prompted only modest protests abroad and almost none at home” Generally, quotes should not be used if the material can be stated in the encyclopedia’s voice. Those statements can probably be re-written in the ency voice (but see WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE which says you cannot use wording that is too similar). One reason you might use quotes there is if the statements are contested or controversial. In that case, the quotes may be used, but the sentence should attribute (say) who said them.

• Quote not needed (same issue as above): {[xt| … and its success was “widely noted” internally.}} The “widely quoted” should probably be presented in the encyclopedia’s voice. If a quote is absolutely required, name the speaker (attribute it).

• The “Public leak” section has a box quote On an official level in the Arab world I think there will be a lot of resentment simply because, even … Quotes inside a box should only be used in rare situations: when the quote is very significant and does not require any context. See MOS:BOXQUOTE. The speaker Walid Kazziha does not even have a WP article. A better alternative is a block quote, see MOS:BLOCKQUOTE, which are implemented with the Template:blockquote. Block quotes are better because they are within the body text paragraphs, and so you can introduce the quote with a sentence or two (e.g. identify the speaker). It looks like the section “Under US law” uses a blockquote template, and uses it properly.

• Wording Assassinations were still illegal under American law at the time. Not sure the word “still” is needed.