Talk:Prisoner exchange in Yemen ends after freeing over 800

Latest comment: 1 year ago by Heavy Water in topic Review of revision 4722864 [Passed]

Review of revision 4721526 [Not ready]

Thank you for the feedback @Heavy Water! I think I'll wait until the exchanges are completed before I update the article to prevent more out-of-date reviews, unless you think otherwise. Cheers! Johnson524 (talk) 02:58, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
That sounds like a good idea, yeah. --Heavy Water (talk) 03:16, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

NPOV and attribution


This article still has some issues. Words like "hopefully" should not casually be in articles. WN:NPOV. The final paragraph probably needs attributions. Who said the nation is "weakened" (a very subjective term) and who sees is as a proxy war? And then there's another "hopefully". I am making these suggestions instead of giving a second failing review. Cheers, SVTCobra 20:24, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello @SVTCobra, and thanks for looking at the page! I have replaced the "hopefully(s)" and tidied up the last paragraph. If you look at the code for the page, I actually credited Reuters for the "proxy war" claim in invisible code so any reviewers could see where I was getting this (quite POV sounding, but repeated in those words in multiple citations) information from, so I just made that text visible. Please tell me if I've missed anything, cheers! Johnson524 (talk) 21:04, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
Well, Wikinews neutrality is more absolute than Wikipedia neutrality, so one can't make a judgement in "Wikinews' voice" even if it's backed up by multiple sources. The WN:Neutrality essay explains this more. Heavy Water (talk) 21:16, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
Hi @Heavy Water, do you agree with how the article is written now after my recent changes? Cheers! Johnson524 (talk) 21:17, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
The last sentence is the only NPOV problem I see. It could be attributed, but I honestly think it would be better to just say "Iran and Saudi Arabia restored diplomatic ties in March" or something like that. Heavy Water (talk) 21:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
  Done @Heavy Water, anything else? Johnson524 (talk) 22:47, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
I think it looks good for NPOV at a glance. Heavy Water (talk) 00:24, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Review of revision 4722307 [Not ready]

It is OK @Heavy Water :) If anything, thank you for finding more recent information about the event so that the article can look the best it can be. I think I have fixed both of your issues about the article not being up-to-date and including unused sources, so if you happen have the time, could you review the article once more? I would really appreciate it! Johnson524 (talk) 14:33, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Review of revision 4722864 [Passed]

OK. I had to publish that before 00:00 UTC for it to be fresh. I treated the Monday exchange as WN:NEWINFO, not because the focal event was stale but because it would have had to have been refreshed to the Monday exchange otherwise. Other than that, problems were mostly limited to: the sources had numbers and cities wrong, I could not find Alharbi's statement or any statement of what was set to be discussed in May (were they in the source you removed?), and there were a lot of extraneous words ("The civil war in Yemen is a military conflict which has been ongoing in the nation since 2014" can be shortened to "The civil war in Yemen began in 2014", for instance). As usual, please see the edit history for details. --Heavy Water (talk) 00:09, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
And what I meant by "not all" when moving the article was that the sources didn't say all of the prisoners were officially prisoners of war — a term usually defined as enemy soldiers captured during a war. --Heavy Water (talk) 02:03, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
Thank you @Heavy Water for not letting this article go stale! You are correct that the expert's quote came from one of the citations that I took out to speed up the review process, so I'm not really sure how I missed taking out the quote itself, so thank you for catching that. As always, I will try to implement the tips you left in the articles history and here (especially about brevity) to hopefully make the process easier for the reviewer in the future. In the meantime, thank you for your helpfulness and patience. Cheers! Johnson524 (talk) 03:12, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
And thank you for writing it. Heavy Water (talk) 03:13, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Possible correction


I'm unclear on what is meant by the sentence ending "cities beginning mid-April 14". Is there a correction needed here? CSJJ104 (talk) 02:18, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Sorry @Heavy Water - Just realised you might still be editing this. CSJJ104 (talk) 02:26, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
I'm not. ICRC flights shuttled prisoners between Houthi-controlled, Aden-controlled, and Saudi Arabian cities beginning mid-April 14: As in, ICRC planes (we couldn't say planes because it's unclear from the sources if there are really multiple planes, though it seems infeasible to do this many flights with one plane) flew prisoners between cities under the control of these governments — prisoners were going to and from all three areas though one prisoner would only visit two — starting about midday on April 14 (I changed it to mid-April 14 for distance from source).

Do you think it should be reworded? Heavy Water (talk) 02:53, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
Return to "Prisoner exchange in Yemen ends after freeing over 800" page.