Talk:Ukraine uses ballistic missiles secretly purchased from the US

Notes to reviewer

In-line citations

I have placed in-line citations as <!--html comment-->. These are only viewable when using the source editor. This article has several within paragraphs.

US$1 billion support package

The BBC reports the support package, which provides additional long-range ATACMS was worth $65bn.[1] That is misleading as the package includes support for Israel and Taiwan.[2] AP News correctly stated $1bn as the amount specifically for Ukraine, which I verified with a transcript from a DoS press briefing.[3]

Do I need to list the DoS briefing transcript as a source? Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 17:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC);edited Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 22:09, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I've dug deeper into this one. According to Reuters[4], the $1bn is "to be sourced from the yet to be signed Ukraine-Israel bill" and the $61bn is the total amount going to Ukraine out of a larger, $95.3bn amount to all three countries.[5] I've updated the article here to clarify the weapons package is a chunk of the $61bn package. I don't think it's useful to mention the total package is $95.3bn.

I've also struck my question above. The AP article quotes Sullivan saying "We’ve already sent some [ATACMS], we will send more now that we have additional authority and money."

Hopefully this bit is now clarified. Any input is welcome. Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 22:09, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

@Michael.C.Wright hopefully published ASAP BigKrow (talk) 18:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

That's consistent with what my understanding of the packages was. Heavy Water (talk) 15:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Title

Should it say US or United States? Thanks. @Michael.C.Wright BigKrow (talk) 21:10, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

The style guide says "...use its full name rather than acronym, unless the acronym is more common than the full name (ex: NASA, UK, AIDS) or length is prohibitive." The abbreviation is frequently used in headlines: Category:United_States. Historically, when a reviewer changes how I use 'US' it is US vs U.S. and I think that comes down to consistency within the article. I've published more articles using 'US' than 'U.S.' but both versions have passed review in the past. If there's a hard-and-fast rule or precedent, Heavy Water would likely know. Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 21:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I think we consider US/U.S. to fall under the first caveat mentioned for that style guide rule. Both the acronyms and the full name are acceptable in their case, although it's possible if you have a long headline the reviewer would want to shorten it by using US/U.S., like the style guide says. Heavy Water (talk) 21:05, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Review of revision 4778764 [Not ready]

Revision 4778764 of this article has been reviewed by Heavy Water (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 22:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: Verifiability: Not ready: NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Argh! We've hit a few interconnected problems involving verifiability and newsworthiness, too major for me to fix and remain uninvolved as a reviewer. First off, I'm finding Ukraine's long-range ATACMS strikes didn't both happen on the same day. The April 25 Reuters source says the Crimea strike occurred on April 17, and the AP source says it occurred early that same week; AP says the Berdyansk strike occurred "overnight" (April 23-24). I also can't find support for the details of the Berdyansk strike in any source other than AP (the closest any other source comes is the April 25 Reuters source, which quotes a US official as saying there had been two Ukrainian long-range ATACMS strikes). The focus here is apparently the strikes, rather than the US announcement on April 24 mentioned in the lede. So one part of the focus is too stale, and the other seems to be effectively single-source (and is a few minutes from going stale itself at this point). The headline ought to use attribution, since the sources are doing so themselves rather than directly verifying this. 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 4778764 of this article has been reviewed by Heavy Water (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 22:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: Verifiability: Not ready: NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Argh! We've hit a few interconnected problems involving verifiability and newsworthiness, too major for me to fix and remain uninvolved as a reviewer. First off, I'm finding Ukraine's long-range ATACMS strikes didn't both happen on the same day. The April 25 Reuters source says the Crimea strike occurred on April 17, and the AP source says it occurred early that same week; AP says the Berdyansk strike occurred "overnight" (April 23-24). I also can't find support for the details of the Berdyansk strike in any source other than AP (the closest any other source comes is the April 25 Reuters source, which quotes a US official as saying there had been two Ukrainian long-range ATACMS strikes). The focus here is apparently the strikes, rather than the US announcement on April 24 mentioned in the lede. So one part of the focus is too stale, and the other seems to be effectively single-source (and is a few minutes from going stale itself at this point). The headline ought to use attribution, since the sources are doing so themselves rather than directly verifying this. 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.

Thanks, as always, for a solid review. Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 23:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Sad to see....

Looked like a great article sad to see go.... BigKrow (talk) 16:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC)