Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Manuel Noriega

Article promoted by Kges1901 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 11:20, 28 July 2020 (UTC) &laquo; Return to A-Class review list

Manuel Noriega
Instructions for nominators and reviewers
 * Nominator(s): 

Manuel Noriega was a military strongman in Panama for a while, and a large player in Central American politics of the time. This is my second nomination of this article; the first nomination received some helpful comments on the sources (from ) and content (from ), but I found myself without the time to address their comments, and asked the nomination to be withdrawn. I have done my best to address their comments before renominating this; where I have not, it's usually because the sources do not provide the necessary information. Before that, the article underwent a thorough GA review from. All comments are welcome. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:11, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Source review—pass
Most of my concerns from the prior review were addressed but the Gilboa article is 23 pages long and really needs page numbers for verifiability. There is a discussion ongoing on WT:FAC which suggests that for verifiability around 10 pages or less may be acceptable but not for longer papers.
 * Okay, fair enough. I'll work on this when I get back online in some hours. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:39, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Now added. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Gilboa says that "on and off the CIA payroll as early as 1971", not that "The CIA made its first regular payment to him in 1971." It does not support the previous sentence either as far as I can tell.
 * Due apologies; the bit about previous payments, and the regularization, are both supported by Dinges 49-52, which I had cited in the previously nominated version; I guess the citation got lost in the reorganization. I have replaced it. I have also reorganized the section a tiny bit to make it clear that the specific agency making previous payments is unknown.
 * Gilboa says that Secretary of State attended Barletta's inauguration and that it recognized the flaws in the election. But I can't tell if it supports the second part of the sentence: "The U.S. accepted Barletta's election, and signaled a willingness to cooperate with him, despite recognizing the flaws in the election process." Where is cooperation mentioned?
 * Cooperation between Barletta's government and the US is discussed extensively in Dinges 198-199, which is the other source cited there; specifically, he discusses state department papers suggested Barletta would be an important ally; the meeting between Barletta and Secretary of State Shultz, in which Shultz asked for Barletta's diplomatic assistance; and describes the outcome of this meeting as a "quid-pro-quo".
 * "Noriega's rule of Panama has frequently been described as a dictatorship," I was unable to verify this because a search for "dictatorship" in Gilboa did not return results. Is this just his own opinion or is he reporting that it is a common opinion? buidhe 04:33, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Gilboa is fairly explicit in describing Noriega as a dictator; there's "Despite the end of the cold war, dictators such as Noriega, Saddam Hussein, and Serbian leaders Slobodan Milosevic and Radovan Karadzic will continue to exist and to challenge the international order" on the first page, for instance, and several other equivalent statements. You are correct in suggesting more citations here would be helpful, though. I have added three others; any number more are available, and it's quite evident that it reflects scholarly consensus.
 * For "frequently been described as a dictatorship" you really need a secondary source reporting that it's a commonly held opinion. I don't doubt it, but it does have to be verifiable. Otherwise, all that you can do is say is something to the effect of "Gilboa, Galván, Kempe, Koster & Sánchez describe Noriega as a dictator" (each is WP:PRIMARY for the opinion held by the author). See WP:RS/AC.
 * I appreciate that that's what our policy says, but when you move out of the anglosphere, the number of people writing syntheses declines drastically; I'm unaware of a literature review related to Norieaga. In this case, if a source does not call Noriega a dictator it will call him an authoritarian ruler or a strongman, and being unable to convey that seems problematic (I don't imagine you want me to list three dozen historians using these descriptors). In large part that's because, unlike some other leaders whose legacy is contested, Noriega's isn't. I can think of a couple of alternatives to the current wording; 1) I could cite an encyclopedia, which is generally considered a tertiary source, but doesn't seem to be mentioned as such at WP:RS/AC; 2) I could stick to the present sources, and write something like "Historians studying Noriega's rule in Panama, including [...], have referred to him as a dictator." 3) I could use the sources I've cited (and several dozen others) for the statement "Noriega was a dictator [refs] and a strongman[refs]". I didn't do 3) because qualifying it seemed more circumspect than stating it baldly, but the sources would actually explictly support (3). (2) seems like us being wishy-washy because scholars don't bother analyzing a question when the answer is widely accepted. How would you like to proceed here? Vanamonde (Talk) 16:11, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've addressed your page range concern above; also, I really would appreciate more discussion of the question here. A fourth option, to add to those above, would be to say "Noriega has been described as a dictator[refs], strongman[refs], and authoritarian ruler[refs]. I would have the same concern as with (2) above, but it's an option. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think option 4 is probably best, although I would not object to 3. Note that "Generally described as a military dictatorship" in the lead also should be changed to match the body. Page ranges are OK now, thanks. buidhe 02:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, after further thought I've implemented something in between 3 & 4. Happy to discuss this further if you feel the need. Best, Vanamonde (Talk) 17:01, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Image review—pass

 * File:La-Sante-Prison-MCB.jpg—there is no freedom of panorama in France, so this image is probably not OK to use.
 * File:Noriega Portrait.jpg—is copyvio, I nominated it for deletion at Commons.
 * Other images OK. buidh<b style="color: White">e</b> 04:33, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Questionable images removed, thanks. Image licensing is not my strong suit. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:03, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support by PM
I may be too close to this, as I've already reviewed earlier this year in some detail, and some points I raised have not been addressed:
 * I'm not sure you are too close to this, given that I asked for a procedural close last time, and it's not as though we had a conflict over your comments. I did make an effort to address your comments from that review in the interim. I'm happy to work through any comments I missed, or anything additional that crops up; I do want to note though, that in most cases where I did not act on your comments, it's because the relevant information doesn't exist in the sources. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Down to Rise to power. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC) Down to 1989 election. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC) That's the redux of my first ACR, I'll reread when you're finished with the above and see if anything else jumps out. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * suggest expanding the infobox with relevant parameters such as nickname, criminal_charges and criminal_penalty
 * Is it a deal-breaker if I don't? The nickname was fairly clearly a derogatory term, obviously not used in his presence; the charges, and penalties, are extensive; in the US, alone, he was charged with ten crimes, and convicted of eight of them. It seems a bit much for the infobox.
 * is anything available on the foreign or domestic awards he received other than the French LoH?
 * Afraid not. I dug a fair bit.
 * when mentioning Arias for the first time, include that he was a candidate of the Panameñista Party
 * Added, though the party was called something else at the time, so rephrased a little.
 * when mentioning Chiari, mention that he was from the National Liberal Party
 * Added.
 * do we known when Noriega was promoted to captain?
 * We do not. I have dug fairly deep. I suspect that to find this information one would need to go through stacks of paperwork belonging to the Panamanian military.
 * "Bush, now US V vice P president"
 * Fixed.
 * what was the reason for deleting the information about BCCI, Bush and the Dukakis campaign statement?
 * As Buidhe pointed out in their source review, that needed a better source than the Dukakis campaign. Dukakis was running against Bush, and had an incentive to show him in a bad light. I tried to see if independent sources had given it any weight, but found no evidence for it. For the record, the material predated my involvement with the article, but I should have caught it regardless.
 * "and announced his intent to return to Panama to oppose him" but we have already learned he returned to Panama in 1981? The timeline here isn't clear, did Spadafora return to Panama, leave and come back? If so, when was he killed?
 * I can see why this is confusing, but to me it simply reflects the fact that a) travel between the small central american countries was commonplace, and b) the writers are probably using that phrasing because Spadafora may not have been in Panama when he made the 1985 announcement. However, it's the substance of the announcement that matters, so I'm just dropping the "return" piece of that; we simply do not have a detailed account of Spadafora's movements over four years. It's a good guess that he left the country a dozen or more times. In the same vein, there's little I can do about the travel to Costa Rica; we know he was returning when murdered, but have no idea where else he had been and for how long.
 * suggest "His decapitated body was later found wrapped in a United States Postal Service mail bag and showing signs of brutal torture."
 * Done.
 * "While Noriega was out of the country"? Where was he?
 * Dinges doesn't say. I've rephrased to make it clear it was his absence that mattered, and that it's not a reference to previous travel
 * Spadafora was murded
 * Fixed.
 * "other intelligence services"? Cuba, but any others?
 * I saw this comment earlier, but I don't quite see the issue; it could mean multiple countries, but also multiple agencies, or really "anything besides the CIA".
 * Defense Forces→PDF
 * Done.
 * add a main template linking to United States invasion of Panama at the top of the Invasion section
 * It's already at the top of the section; does it need to be over the subsection too?
 * the number of US casualties during the invasion is clearly stated as 23 killed and more than 300 wounded in the NYT per, and the LA Times said 23 killed and 324 wounded per . I reckon you should just go with the LA Times figures, and perhaps include the number of friendly fire casualties from that article as well.
 * Not too happy scrubbing the scholarly source, but the 23 figure is repeated everywhere and the 60 is not, so okay.
 * Panama city→Panama City
 * Done.
 * With regards to the local civilian casualties, Physicians for Human Rights said that there was no evidence of several thousand civilian deaths. See the NYT article
 * We've already added a bunch of lower death tolls, and I think the higher number comes from enough people that it needs mentioned...
 * link land mine
 * The Guardian says his nickname was due to his heavily pockmarked features as the result of a childhood illness, per.
 * Added.
 * Thanks; I've replied. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:51, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey, not to be a bother, but I was wondering if there were other concerns you had, and if not, whether you would consider supporting promotion? Best, Vanamonde (Talk) 18:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries, will look it over again in the next day or so. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:47, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Not to be a bother, just another gentle nudge...also wondering if you have any thoughts on the lack of attention here. I've been a bit remiss with respect to reviewing myself, admittedly. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Some minor additional points:
 * Apologies for having missed this. Addressing now. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:45, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

That's it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:09, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Noriega himself has provided varying dates of birth
 * Done.
 * "he was given a commissioned as a second lieutenant"
 * Done.
 * for 1968 Panamanian P presidential election, link 1968 Panamanian general election
 * Done.
 * Arias was a member of the National Revolutionary Party that represented the National Revolutionary Party.?
 * Should have been "represented the Panamenista movement", with the link going to the movement rather than the party.
 * The sitting P president,
 * Done.
 * suggest "he continued to pass intelligence about the plantation workers' activities to the U.S. during this period."
 * This, I think, I don't like; the continuation is in passing intelligence, not with respect to plantation workers specifically.
 * suggest "Later, Noriega maintained a close relationship"
 * Done.
 * I don't get the sense of "partly due to the latter's Panamanian outpost." what is "the latter"? Panama or the School?
 * Fixed; the school had an outpost in Panama.
 * Torrijos' "dirty work" possessive
 * Done.
 * U.S. p President Richard Nixon
 * Done.
 * US$100,000 per MOS:CURRENCY
 * Done.
 * director of Central Intelligence is linked to the comedy film, you've already introduced CIA, use that
 * Well, the position was Director of Central Intelligence; I've used that link instead (incidentally, before I saw your comment...)
 * stand for P president
 * Done
 * link nationalism in the lead and body?
 * Done
 * link Defense Intelligence Agency
 * Done
 * an ally of Torrijos
 * Done
 * Panama Canal Zone, Panameñista Party, Oliver North, Psychological warfare, and cocaine are duplinked in the body
 * Removed four of those; I'm going to invoke IAR with respect to the canal zone, because I think the second link is in a helpful place.
 * First Lieutenant Robert Paz
 * Done
 * "A total of 23 U.S. soldiers" you shouldn't start sentences with arabic numerals. Alternatively "Twenty-three U.S. soldiers"
 * Done
 * link CBS
 * Done
 * add (DEA) when Drug Enforcement Administration is introduced
 * Done
 * In the game, the fictional character Frank Woods refers to Noriega as "Old Pineapple Face", a nickname originally applied to the President by Panamanians as this has now been added earlier
 * Done
 * All done now; apologies for not noticing this set of comments. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This is in great shape, Vanamonde. Very happy to support. I've noticed over the years that politico-military leaders (like Roman Emperors, Muslim caliphs etc) can struggle to attract enough attention at Milhist ACR. Let's see if my comment on the Milhist talk page attracts any more reviewers, but as far as I am concerned, this is a potential FAC candidate as it stands now, and if we have to archive it that shouldn't dissuade you from taking it to FAC. Well done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:43, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much, and I genuinely appreciate the thorough review. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support from Eddie891
Will comment shortly. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 12:42, 22 July 2020 (UTC) That's comments from me through'National Guard career', more to come. These comments are relatively subjective and I'm more than happy to discuss any further, please don't feel that they are 'required'-- indeed, quite a few of them are nothing more then personal preference. Best Eddie891 Talk Work 13:35, 22 July 2020 (UTC) That's through 'rise to power'. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 14:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC) That's through De facto leader. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 16:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "was the de facto ruler of Panama" worth piping to List of heads of state of Panama?
 * Done.
 * You don't seem to mention "February 11, 1934" as his DOB in the body, despite mentioning it definitively in both the lede and the infobox. Suggest adding "February 11" in the body, and maybe a note for infobox and lede about the uncertainty of his birth.
 * I've added a note to the lead and infobox, and clarified in the body. It's a funny situation, wherein the Feb 11 remains consistent, but the year does not.
 * "has been variously described as a cook or a laundress" I'd say "has been variously described as a cook and a laundress" or "was a cook or a laundress", though I'm not sure about the linguistic nuance here.
 * Gone with the first.
 * "Neither had a lengthy presence in his life:" Not a fan of how this sounds, especially that you don't really mention what happened to his father, suggest removing it and rephrasing the next two sentences to "His mother died of tuberculosis when he was still a child and Noriega was brought up by a godmother in a one-room apartment in the slum area of Terraplén." or "His mother died of tuberculosis when he was still a child. As a result, Noriega was brought up by a godmother in a one-room apartment in the slum area of Terraplén" or something like that...
 * Reworded.
 * I'd link domestic worker because it seems like a particularly relevant topic in its context
 * Done
 * "Authors and journalists have suggested that Noriega was in fact " I'd cut "in fact"
 * Done
 * "and later at the Instituto Nacional" worth a red-link (or perhaps there's a blue one)?
 * added.
 * " He was described as an "oddly serious child,"" Ideally there'd be attribution for this quote, who described him that way?
 * It's Frederick Kempe, the journalist who wrote the cited source. I don't know that it's a contentious enough passage to name the source, though...
 * "by his punctilious godmother" I'd consider punctilious a rather unknown term, certainly less known than 'espouse' (the latter is linked in the lede) and perhaps worth a wikt link. However, is it really needed at all?
 * Not necessarily...outlooks differ on how plain encyclopedic prose ought to be, but I'm not wedded to it.
 * "He continued to work with the U.S. intelligence services at various points till the 1980s [...] was the first of many payments he would receive from the U.S. for his activities." is this really needed? It's largely been mentioned in the lede and seems a bit like foreshadowing which imo should generally be avoided in the article body. I'd replace with "His first payment from the US was $10.70 in 1955" or something like that
 * Fair point, trimmed.
 * "Noriega harbored intentions of becoming a doctor" a bit clunky to me, maybe "Noriega intended to become a doctor" or something like that, not a big deal either way
 * Trimmed.
 * The para beginning "Noriega harbored intentions of becoming a doctor," has no dates at all. I'd love to see one or two for the reader to anchor on
 * Added one; dates are hard to come by in Noriega's early life
 * "made the acquaintance of Roberto Díaz Herrera" might be worth mentioning why Herrera was in peru?
 * Added.
 * "Noriega married Felicidad Sieiro" date?
 * Nothing more precise than "late 1960s"
 * "and Noriega a member of the National Guard" I don't think it's worth mentioning that here, if only because it would be more relevant to link Panama National Guard in it's section-- not a big deal either way. Also, should it be 'Panamanian National Guard'? I note that we have a standing redirect at Panamanian National Guard, but not at Panama National Guard
 * Well Panamanian is implied here, and the info is here because there's otherwise little to contextualize the marriage, and also because the source considers it relevant to the disapproval from her family.
 * ", protecting him when he ran into trouble" what does this add to the article? Personally I'd cut it.
 * Fair enough.
 * " In 1966, Noriega was again involved in a violent incident, allegedly raping a 13-year-old girl and beating her brother. After this Torrijos transferred Noriega to a remote posting." I'd favor putting this after the 1964 paragraph, because they are all violent incidents. In that same vein, if you switch this it's no longer necessary to say "prior to some of these incidents"
 * switched
 * When you first mention Dinges, I'd suggest mentioning that he wrote a book (something like John Dinges, in his YEAR book Title), because by introducing him as a journalist, it seems that you are just citing news articles, which isn't the case, I don't think.
 * Added
 * "During the various times he spent there" why not just "while at the school,"?
 * No good reason...tweaked
 * I know it's not necessarily an uncommon word, but I'd recommend linking coup on it's first mention given how central the topic is to this guy
 * Added
 * You caption an image "Carter shaking hands with Torrijos after signing the Panama Canal Treaty" but don't mention a Panama Canal Treaty in the article body
 * It's one of the Torrijos-Carter treaties, which are mentioned
 * " Noriega would provide intelligence, and carry out covert operations" I don't think that comma is needed
 * Removed
 * " He also kept files on several officials within the military, the government, and the judiciary, allowing him to blackmail them later. He also held the positions of head of the political police, and head of immigration." Is the last comma needed? Is there any way you can avoid starting two sentences with "He also" in a row?
 * Removed, and tweaked
 * "of the diplomatic consequences involved." perhaps "of potential diplomatic consequences" as nobody could really know for sure what diplomatic consequences would be involved
 * Fair. added.
 * " and the U.S. began to see him as the real problem" what does 'real problem' mean here? There's no indication that anybody else was seen as a problem, and we haven't seen a lot of evidence that Noriega was heavily involved in drug trafficing, other than that the US could have indicted him on 'drug charges' (also, it's not clear to an un-discerning reader what 'drug charges' might be-- you can be arrested for a lot of drug-related charges
 * I've dropped bit about the charges, and stuck to indictment. Dinges makes it clear that the evidence was that of drug smuggling, but only implies that that's what the charge would have been; so I'd rather keep it simple. Also, reworded the rest.
 * "may have been tried in the early 1970s," does that mean that Dinges thinks there were plots tried or the government considered trying them, or something else?
 * He writes that some of the other options "appear to have been tried", but doesn't say which or when. I think this is as much detail as we're going to get.
 * "During the same period of the " I'd cut "the same period of the", imo it's unnecessary here, maybe could be replaced with "Also during the"
 * Trimmed
 * I think there are a lot of extraneous commas in this section, i.e. "He was placed on the payroll of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), while he held his position as head of Panamanian intelligence." though I'm awful with commas, so cannot be sure
 * I've removed a couple. I do think it's a matter of preference, in those instances.
 * "During the same period of the early 1970s, Noriega's relationship with the U.S. intelligence services was regularized. He was placed on the payroll of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), while he held his position as head of Panamanian intelligence. The CIA made its first regular payment to him in 1971; he had previously been paid by U.S. intelligence services on a case-by-case basis." IMO you basically say the same thing in all of these three sentences. I'd reckon you could condense into one or two that convey 1) he used to be paid a on case-by-case basis 2) his relationship and pay were regularized-- because in this case aren't they virtually synonymous? (beginning in 1971). It's unnecessary to say that the relationship was regularized three different ways three times.
 * I don't know that it's entirely redundant, but I've trimmed slightly.
 * "On some occasions, the Panamanian embassy in Managua, the capital of Nicaragua, would be used by U.S. intelligence agents" how, exactly, does this relate to Noriega?
 * I checked the source, and it says Noriega used the embassy to collect intel for the US. It's possible I was using a different source when writing it, or that I misread. As that stands, though, it's not very useful because intelligence on the Sandinistas has already been mentioned. Removed.
 * "Noriega also served as the U.S. emissary to Cuba during negotiations following the Johnny Express incident" could benefit from a date?
 * December 1971. Added.
 * "The payments were as high" his payments, the contingency funds, or both?
 * The contingency funds. Clarified.
 * " selling intelligence on the U.S. to Cuba at the same time" it's unclear to me what it was at the same time as
 * Same time as he was working for the CIA; clarified
 * "he declined to do so, because that would have exposed Noriega's role in the matter." who is 'he' here?
 * Bush; I'm confused as to why that's ambiguous; he's the only person named there...
 * Were any US intelligence services involved besides the CIA?
 * Occasionally, yes; US Army intelligence, for instance. The specifics are not usually discussed, though; the sources often just say "US Intelligence agencies".
 * After the Nicaraguan Revolution was launched against" It's worth immediately mentioning who launched the rebellion, imo
 * Added. Already mentioned above, so not linked.
 * "newly appointed a general" link general?
 * Done.
 * "by either buying a controlling stake in them, or by forcing them to shut down" why not "by either buying a controlling stake in them or forcing them to shut down"?
 * Done
 * "ivil wars broke out in Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Nicaragua" worth linking to them?
 * Added
 * "A report by the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency" worth a date?
 * Not obviously available, I'm afraid; Hersh says "recent" but that could mean anything
 * "Noriega's new image" I'm a little unclear on what his new image was, exactly?
 * It's a complex set of things, but most prominent among them was that he was perceived as being anti-trafficking. Added that; the rest is possibly a little too much detail, Dinges devotes three whole pages to very subtle things.
 * "before an attack on Colombia's west coast" perhaps "before launching an attack"?
 * Added.
 * "5,000 Panamanian passports to the Cuban government for use by its intelligence services" date?
 * Not in the source, I'm afraid.
 * "Noriega's direct involvement in moving weapons and drugs declined in the early 1980s" didn't you already talk about this in the above paragraph? I think those two (para beginning "Many of the operations Noriega benefited from were run by associates" and "'Noriega began supplying weapons to the M-19 rebel group in Colombia in 1981") could be integrated better to make it more chronological
 * Partially integrated with previous paragraph, where it appeared to flow better; I think paras 3 and 4 there are distinct, as the former is about drugs and the latter, weapons.
 * " including funds and weapons" what about them? Was he conduiting American support by purchasing the weapons and sending funds or was he getting funds to purchase weapons or giving his own funds as a manifestation of American support, or something else?
 * As a conduit for both those things...reworded
 * It might be worth replacing some of the U.S.'s with 'American' for variation
 * This was actually quite intentional; using "American" to refer to the USA is a colloquialism that's generally okay when referring to regions outside the americas, but in regions where "America" has many meanings, I'd rather not
 * "Bush, now US vice president" you use U.S. everywhere else
 * Fixed.
 * " These payments included $76,039" a year or a one-time thing?
 * Total, at least according to the source; clarified
 * " At Noriega's trial in 1991–1992, the U.S. government stipulated that it had paid $322,000 to Noriega." I'd split the paragraph here to avoid confusion that the US paid him that for the Iran-Contra affair unless they did-- is there any more detail about his 'role' in the affair?
 * There's some, but Dinges describes it as being unconfirmed. That he was reported as playing a role is fact, though, so I've stuck with that.
 * " with 100,000 people, approximately 25% of the population of Panama City, marching in protest on June 26, 1987" any data on protesters outside of the city, and is there a location you can add to where the protest was?
 * I'm afraid the English sources do not say. I may be able to find some material if I dug through Spanish newspaper archives, but that seems a little above and beyond due diligence for a detail such as this.
 * "selling intelligence to the Cuban government of Fidel Castro" I thought the CIA was already aware of him selling this intel?
 * The CIA yes, the general public not so much; Hersh's report was public.
 * "After lengthy and inconclusive talks, the negotiations collapsed a few months later" I think this would be expressed smoother by " Negotiations collapsed after several months of lengthy and inconclusive talks"
 * Done
 * "In a December 16 incident," was this one of the three incidents? If so, why do the other two not merit a mention
 * The other two incidents are mentioned by Bush in his speech, but aren't given coverage by secondary sources. I'm a little hesitant to even mention them.
 * link US Attorney General?
 * Done.
 * " Having threatened to flee to the countryside and lead guerrilla warfare if not given refuge, he instead turned over the majority of his weapons, and requested sanctuary" reads oddly to me. 1st, he demands refuge, 2nd, he turns in his weapons and 3rd begs for refuge?
 * I agree it reads oddly, but that's because it's bloody odd behavior...

That's through the US invasion Eddie891 Talk Work 16:35, 22 July 2020 (UTC) That's prosecution and death sections, last two to come in a bit-- Real life calls. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:50, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "which the Miami grand jury had returned two years earlier." this is your first time mentioning Miami in the body in the relation to a court...
 * It's the "US Court" mentioned above; now clarified.
 * " Noriega was reported to have undergone a full conversion" conversion from what?
 * Catholicism. Added.
 * "In 1999, the Panamanian government had sought the extradition" I'd add " from the U.S." since we were just talking about france, an unaware reader might forget.
 * Added.
 * " Santo Tomas hospital" you previously call it " Hospital Santo Tomás"
 * Fixed

That's it from me, really great article and just a fascinating topic. Please ping me once you've responded to all-- it will make me far more likely to remember to come back. Apologies if this review is a bit much, I got excited when reading through! Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 00:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "A 2017 obituary stated " maybe 'a 2017 obituary published in the BBC' or something similar?
 * Added
 * "A reviewer wrote that "the hair-raising career " could use the name and publication
 * Added
 * "oriega is mentioned in season 1 episode 5 of the National Geographic documentary Dictators Rulebook" is this really worth a mention?
 * Probably not. Drive-by editors love to drop in popular culture mentions that secondary sources ignore.
 * I'd expect at least a mention of Sarah York in the body, given that her whole articles notability hinges on the fact that she was a pen-pal with Noriega
 * I'm not certain that follows; she's notable for that one thing; he was essentially a head of state for many years; but okay. added.
 * Cite #11 wants a publication date
 * Done
 * cite 86 has the error "Cite journal requires  (help)"
 * Fixed, I think? Someone monkeyed with the scripts I used to use to highlight ref errors, and I can't seem to spot them any more, despite trying a fix...
 * What makes IMDB (cite 131) a reliable source?
 * Well, the source is the film; imdb was supplied for convenience, I suppose. I've edited the url to go a page more useful for someone looking for the film, but the url isn't going to be the source, it's the film itself.
 * I'm slightly concerned at how many further reading books there are, but the article seems comprehensive enough to me
 * Well, if you look through the entries, you'll see they're very detailed explorations of specific issues that are touched on in this article but cannot really be examined in detail here (we're at ~9k words already...) such as the legal case, and the history of cocaine.
 * I think that's everything. Your review certainly gave me a lot of work to do, but I do appreciate the attention to detail; you've really helped tighten the prose. Regards, Vanamonde (Talk) 20:25, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Really great work on this article, I’m now happy to support. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:40, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Support from Woody
A good read with a few comments from me: That's about it from me. Woody (talk) 09:03, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "who at one point expressed a desire for a divorce, though she changed her mind later." This seems a bit woolly/vague to me. Are there any specifics?
 * Kempe has a very colorful story about this, but it's very detail makes it suspect, and I'd rather stick to the bare bones
 * Should it be in there at all if it is suspect? I'm not sure it adds much.
 * I think it's the appropriate level of detail; we don't need three pages of how Sieiro's brother and Noriega had a Mexican standoff in a bar after the brother found out Noriega had been making his sister sad, but his unfaithfulness, and her evident frustration, seem worth documenting, and if those are false then Kempe is completely making stuff up, rather than simply relying on a single interview, which would explain the rest.
 * "Authors and journalists have suggested that Noriega was the illegitimate son of his father and his father's domestic worker, whose family name was Moreno." Same here as well as seeming a bit tabloidy. This is essentially gossip. You could make it more specific ie Kempe and Galvan have stated...etc
 * This isn't actually gossip; that Noriega's mother was the domestic worker is accepted; the uncertainty is over whether his parents were married, I think, with some sources (Galvan and Kempe) stating they were not, and others (Dinges) saying that it's uncertain. I've added a snippet from Dinges about this.
 * I don't like the phrase "authors and journalists" here, to me they appear to be weasel words: I would state which authors and journalists.
 * I've reworded slightly; I don't like naming the authors every time, as it makes the text less accessible to the lay person (I think) and also adds length
 * "Torrijos helped Noriega avoid legal trouble after a prostitute accused Noriega of beating and raping her." I think such a claim needs a direct citation. (I would probably just move the next citation to here and leave the next sentence being cited by the one at the end of the para.
 * Done.
 * "Several prisoners said that they had been tortured; others stated they had been raped in prison" So what? Do the sources link this to Noriega. If not, why is it relevant to Noriega? If they do, we need to state that.
 * It happened under his command, and he was held responsible, as the next sentence says.
 * The next sentence says "The brutality of Noriega's activities" This could just be me but it could relate to something else other than this immediate incident. Was he suspended solely for his treatment of these specific prisoners or was it more general?
 * It was the entire "suppress the opposition" episode; I've reworded to clarify
 * "in just a year and a half," 18 months would be more concise.
 * Done.
 * "During his flight Noriega reportedly took shelter with several supportive politicians, including Balbina Herrera, the mayor of San Miguelito.[137] The last two days of his flight were spent partly with his ally Jorge Krupnick." Who reported it? The second sentence here is redundant without explanation. Who is Jorge Krupnick?
 * Krupnick isn't very well known. Kempe describes him as an arms dealer, which I've added.
 * "Psychological warfare specialists were brought in to attempt to dislodge Noriega, including blaring rock music, and turning a nearby field into a helicopter landing zone." Psychological warfare specialists turned a field into a helicopter landing zone?
 * I've added some detail here; the specialists seem to have stuck to the music, but the landing zone was actually built, presumably to make it even noisier.
 * Thanks for the review; I think I've addressed everything. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It looks good for A-Class and is a good read. It certainly enlightened me on a period I didn't know much about. I've responded to a couple of your comments but they don't preclude it passing. Woody (talk) 20:32, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I've made a couple further tweaks. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:22, 26 July 2020 (UTC)