Talk:Prisoner exchange in Yemen ends after freeing over 800

Review of revision 4721526 [Not ready]

Revision 4721526 of this article has been reviewed by Heavy Water (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 02:00, 16 April 2023 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: Unfortunately, already out-of-date because more prisoners were exchanged on Saturday. Verifiability: Not ready: The lead says: "On Friday, nearly 900 Yemeni prisoners were exchanged". No, and this contradicts the second paragraph. 900 are set to be free (remember WN:FUTURE as well). NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: @Johnson524. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 4721526 of this article has been reviewed by Heavy Water (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 02:00, 16 April 2023 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: Unfortunately, already out-of-date because more prisoners were exchanged on Saturday. Verifiability: Not ready: The lead says: "On Friday, nearly 900 Yemeni prisoners were exchanged". No, and this contradicts the second paragraph. 900 are set to be free (remember WN:FUTURE as well). NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: @Johnson524. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

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 I think I'll wait until the exchanges are completed before I update the article to prevent more out-of-date reviews, unless you think otherwise.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)

That sounds like a good idea, yeah. --Heavy Water (talk) 03:16, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Done @Heavy Water, anything else? Johnson524 (talk) 22:47, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I think it looks good for NPOV at a glance. Heavy Water (talk) 00:24, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Review of revision 4722307 [Not ready]

Revision 4722307 of this article has been reviewed by Heavy Water (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 03:06, 21 April 2023 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: Ugh, sorry. This focal event is out of date again because upon Saudi Arabia's request, the ICRC repatriated another 104 detainees to the Houthis. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: I also did some edits for NPOV (both sides claim to be the legitimate government of Yemen) and active voice. And please check when resubmitting this to ensure all the sources are needed (WN:CS says no unused sources should be listed). Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 4722307 of this article has been reviewed by Heavy Water (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 03:06, 21 April 2023 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: Ugh, sorry. This focal event is out of date again because upon Saudi Arabia's request, the ICRC repatriated another 104 detainees to the Houthis. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: I also did some edits for NPOV (both sides claim to be the legitimate government of Yemen) and active voice. And please check when resubmitting this to ensure all the sources are needed (WN:CS says no unused sources should be listed). Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

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)

Review of revision 4722864 [Passed]

Revision 4722864 of this article has been reviewed by Heavy Water (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:59, 23 April 2023 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I'll say something in a minute. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 4722864 of this article has been reviewed by Heavy Water (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:59, 23 April 2023 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I'll say something in a minute. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

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)

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)

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)

And thank you for writing it. Heavy Water (talk) 03:13, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

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)

Sorry @Heavy Water - Just realised you might still be editing this. CSJJ104 (talk) 02:26, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

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)