Wikipedia:Peer review/Cruise missile strikes on Afghanistan and Sudan (August 1998)/archive1

Cruise missile strikes on Afghanistan and Sudan (August 1998)
I've listed this article for peer review because… I've put a good deal of work into it as of late, and I'm interested in how to improve it in preparation for GA.

Thanks, GABHello! 17:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I understand that it needs an expanded lede and an improved background section. This will come when I have some more time for solid, good old content editing. GABHello! 20:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments. Hi GAB. You're in the right place, but several of the dedicated reviewers (including me) are currently on a break. I've got this watchlisted, and I'm sure I'll get to it before the PR is closed. - Dank (push to talk) 19:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much. I'm happy to keep working in the meantime as necessary. GABHello! 19:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Continuing. My guess is the page title will get shortened at some point, but I'm not an expert in page titles.
 * The lead section should be a summary of the article.
 * "The missiles were launched": The first section should make sense on its own, without the lead.
 * "1:30 EDT (17:30 GMT)": 01:30, if you're using a 24-hour clock, per WP:MOSNUM.
 * ✅ GABHello! 22:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "From 1995 ... the CIA received intelligence": American English, so: Since 1995 ... the CIA had received intelligence.
 * ✅ Corrected this. GABHello! 14:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Past perfect, "had received". Using past tense after "since" is informal and sometimes ambiguous. - Dank (push to talk) 16:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ I'm hanging my head in shame! GABHello! 17:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * A simple mistake, and PR isn't important enough to be a source of shame for anyone :) - Dank (push to talk) 18:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Best of luck at GAN. - Dank (push to talk) 02:33, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments
 * Suggest expanding the lead to give a more complete summary of the article
 * dead link
 * ✅ Link fixed. GABHello! 23:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * No citations to Bergen 2006
 * ✅ Removed Bergen. GABHello! 23:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Suggest restructuring the article to begin with a Background section - jumping right into "The missiles were launched..." is quite jarring
 * "the attack may have caused "several tens of thousands" of Sudanese civilian deaths" - these were from the direct impact of the missiles, the resulting lack of pharmaceuticals in the country, or some other cause?
 * ✅ Clarified this. GABHello! 14:48, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * If Annan released a statement saying he awaited further details, did he follow up once those details came to light?
 * Publication titles should be italicized in citations - a few are not. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comments from Calvin999
 * The lead feels a bit sparse to me. I reckon a few more sentences could be added to make it feel and look more complete. It needs a bit of background and what the result was.
 * For 'Strength' in the info box, I would put 'Approx.' instead of 'About'
 * There shouldn't be citations in the lead and any sourced info should appear in the main body
 * ✅. GABHello! 18:36, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * were American → I always find this ambiguous. American could really be used to describe anyone or anything relating to the American continent as a whole. I would use United States, because then it is country specific and apply this throughout.
 * Calvin999, GAB followed your advice and changed one instance of "American" to "conducted by the United States". That's wordier and decreases readability (by coming at the end of the sentence), so I changed it back to "American", in line with every style guide I've seen that has an opinion on the subject. If the objection is that this is ambiguous, that some reader will get confused and think that we meant, say, Argentina, then please produce that confused reader for me so I can ask them where they got that idea. (But I like all your other advice here, good job.) - Dank (push to talk) 18:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 1:30 → Can you clarify if this is am or pm?
 * 1730 → 17:30
 * ✅. GABHello! 18:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * There's no Background section with info about what led to this strike?
 * Thirteen hit → Thirteen missiles hit (also implies that some missed?)
 * ✅. GABHello! 18:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * the mastermind of the → the mastermind behind the
 * ✅. GABHello! 18:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Then-United States National Security Council advisor Richard Clarke stated → Richard Clarke, the United States National Security Council advisor at the time of the strikes, stated
 * ✅. GABHello! 18:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * linking Osama bin Laden → linking bin Laden
 * ✅. GABHello! 18:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * "Beginning in 1995," writes → I don't see why this is quotation?
 * ✅. GABHello! 18:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * in Saudi Arabia." → Not a full sentence/quote so full stop goes outside the quotation mark, not inside
 * ✅. GABHello! 18:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Block quotes shouldn't have quotation marks because they are indented which is indicative of a quotation.
 * ✅. GABHello! 18:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Structurally, the paragraphs in Attack on camps in Afghanistan could be arranged better. You have two one line paragraphs and one big paragraph.
 * I think it's a bit too much having a big image with a quotation template right under it. It's too much going on too close together.
 * ✅ Fixed. GABHello! 14:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * U.S. President Bill Clinton announced → Link Bill Clinton
 * ✅. GABHello! 18:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Reportedly, some → It was reported that some
 * I would alphabetise the countries/organisations in Reaction.
 * ✅. GABHello! 18:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm still unclear as to who "won" as such.

Ping me with any questions. — Calvin999 17:47, 31 October 2015 (UTC)