208:"The United States had direct evidence that Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) chief, Lt. Gen. Ahmed Shuja Pasha, knew of bin Laden’s presence in Abbottabad, Pakistan.": I was looking at this because it didn't seem to fit in the first paragraph, but I found that the source (a NYT article) doesn't support this sentence at all: "a Pakistani official told me that the United States had direct evidence that the ISI chief, Lt. Gen. Ahmed Shuja Pasha, knew of Bin Laden’s presence in Abbottabad. The information came from a senior United States official, and I guessed that the Americans had intercepted a phone call ...": So, a NYT reporter says that an unnamed Pakistani official says that an unnamed US official had nonspecific information, which might or might not have come from a phone call. If you want to use this source, that's the statement this source supports. It's not solid enough to go in the first paragraph, or to stand alone. - Dank (
328:"An unnamed U.S. senior defense official stated that only one of the five people killed was armed" - not sure if this is true and the implication is questionable: other accounts say that several of the people killed were armed, or could reasonably have been assumed to have been armed based on their behaviour
318:
The 'Objective' section is badly structured: it's a she says-he says type grab bag of news stories rather than a concise attempt to explain the situation. From what I've read in the books on the subject, the consensus is that the SEALs were ordered to capture bin Laden if feasible, but no-one at all
314:
The background section of the article is rather short in comparison to the coverage the hunt for bin Laden usually receives in works on this topic, and I don't understand the logic behind having a separate 'Previous attempts to capture or kill bin Laden' section, especially located at the end of the
310:
There's WAY too many quotes from news stories, especially of people speculating about the operation anonymously. The books on this topic, some of which are pretty good, are largely free of this kind of rambling speculation and are greatly under-used as sources here: media reports from the days after
346:
Bissonnette makes the interesting observation that his unit had conducted large numbers of more difficult attacks on housing compounds in
Afghanistan, and that the only particularly challenging or unusual part of the raid was penetrating into
338:
The author also asserted that one SEAL sat on bin Laden's chest in a cramped helicopter as his body was flown back to
Afghanistan. - why does this simple statement need seven references? From memory, it's in the book so just cite
319:
expected that he'd surrender. Also bear in mind that it would have been illegal to have ordered the SEALs to have not accepted bin Laden's surrender had he offered it, so it's very unlikely that such a direction was given.
173:. At FAC, the first question you'll probably get is "Have you notified the major contributors?" ... so it might be best to go ahead and notify them now that this is at peer review. Best of luck. - Dank (
202:
article says there were several founders, so either that article should be changed, or this article should say "one of the founders". I don't personally know what reliable sources say about this.
350:
Do we really need two paras on the operation's Code name? The first para could easily be integrated into the body of the article and the second is storm in a teacup stuff.
126:
311:
the raid aren't terribly useful as sources given that the events of the operation have subsequently been set out much more clearly in books and magazine articles.
122:
107:
76:
353:
I'd suggest developing this article through good article and A-class assessments before going to FAC. It needs a lot of work to reach such a standard.
99:
331:
How and why did Chuck
Pfarrer reach a different version of the events of the raid? What were his sources? (the level of coverage here seems to be
377:
249:
69:
153:
I've listed this article for peer review because I wish to push this piece of important information in recent history to FAC.
325:
The coverage of the raid itself is pretty sketchy and not very coherent. I'd suggest structuring this as a clear narrative.
362:
295:
277:
232:
213:
192:
178:
165:
50:
44:
115:
62:
291:
228:
188:
161:
92:
17:
268:
Before going to FAC, make sure the references are consistently formatted, so similar sources look similar.
259:
273:
287:
224:
184:
157:
332:
358:
269:
209:
174:
371:
265:
Mix of US and UK spelling - for example, you have both "criticized" and "criticised"
322:
There's a fair bit of repeated and over-linking in the 'Approach and entry' section
354:
335:
given that his version of events differs so much from that in other sources)
199:
205:"The operation ... was carried out in a ... operation": repetition
246:
Given the length of the article, the lead should be longer
141:
134:
103:
306:
I'll focus on the section on the military operation:
255:Try to avoid having a one-sentence subsection
70:
8:
150:This peer review discussion has been closed.
77:
63:
32:
262:throughout, some in very close proximity
35:
216:Tweaked 13:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
7:
198:More comments. "the founder": Our
24:
241:General comments from Nikkimaria
363:05:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
233:11:34, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
1:
296:17:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
214:09:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
378:September 2014 peer reviews
278:20:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
193:16:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
179:16:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
166:15:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
18:Knowledge (XXG):Peer review
394:
28:Death of Osama bin Laden
223:I see. Looking at it.
142:Watch peer review
87:
86:
385:
139:
130:
111:
79:
72:
65:
47:
33:
393:
392:
388:
387:
386:
384:
383:
382:
368:
367:
252:should be fixed
145:
120:
97:
91:
83:
51:Manual of Style
43:
31:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
391:
389:
381:
380:
370:
369:
366:
365:
351:
348:
340:
336:
329:
326:
323:
320:
316:
312:
301:
300:
299:
298:
288:Forbidden User
281:
280:
266:
263:
260:repeated links
256:
253:
247:
243:
242:
238:
237:
236:
235:
225:Forbidden User
218:
217:
206:
203:
185:Forbidden User
158:Forbidden User
152:
147:
146:
144:
90:
85:
84:
82:
81:
74:
67:
59:
56:
55:
54:
53:
48:
38:
37:
30:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
390:
379:
376:
375:
373:
364:
360:
356:
352:
349:
345:
341:
337:
334:
330:
327:
324:
321:
317:
313:
309:
308:
307:
305:
297:
293:
289:
285:
284:
283:
282:
279:
275:
271:
267:
264:
261:
257:
254:
251:
248:
245:
244:
240:
239:
234:
230:
226:
222:
221:
220:
219:
215:
211:
207:
204:
201:
197:
196:
195:
194:
190:
186:
183:Done. Thanks!
181:
180:
176:
172:
168:
167:
163:
159:
154:
151:
143:
138:
137:
133:
128:
124:
119:
118:
114:
109:
105:
101:
96:
95:
89:
88:
80:
75:
73:
68:
66:
61:
60:
58:
57:
52:
49:
46:
45:Copying check
42:
41:
40:
39:
34:
29:
26:
19:
343:
303:
302:
258:A number of
210:push to talk
182:
175:push to talk
170:
169:
155:
149:
148:
135:
131:
117:Article talk
116:
112:
93:
27:
344:No Easy Day
104:visual edit
270:Nikkimaria
250:Dead links
347:Pakistan.
342:Also, in
372:Category
333:WP:UNDUE
304:Comments
200:al-Qaeda
156:Thanks,
315:article
286:Thanks!
171:Comment
127:history
108:history
94:Article
36:Toolbox
355:Nick-D
136:Watch
16:<
359:talk
339:that
292:talk
274:talk
229:talk
189:talk
162:talk
123:edit
100:edit
374::
361:)
294:)
276:)
231:)
212:)
191:)
177:)
164:)
140:•
125:|
106:|
102:|
357:(
290:(
272:(
227:(
187:(
160:(
132:·
129:)
121:(
113:·
110:)
98:(
78:e
71:t
64:v
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.