# Talk:2002 Marib airstrike

G'day, I've had a close read of this and it is a tightly written article which describes the US and Yemeni viewpoints well. I was going to review the GAN but I do wonder that it is essentially based on contemporaneous news reports and doesn't use as references any academic quality books that examine targeted killings such as this, especially those from non-US authors. This is particularly important given it was the first US one in several aspects (outside Afghanistan, killing an American etc), and has had serious ramifications under international law. I strongly recommend delving into Boon and Lovelace's 2012 The Intersection of Law and War, which has a chapter on targeted killing and its role in the "war on terror". Also Barela's 2016 Legitimacy and Drones: Investigating the Legality, Morality and Efficacy of UCAVs and Boyle (ed.) 2018 Legal and Ethical Implications of Drone Warfare. Cheers, Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 07:55, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the insight! I'll look into those resources you noted and find a few of my own, would something like an "Impact" section which covers the lasting legal effects and legacy be appropriate? Hsnkn (talk) 00:25, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
Absolutely. I think that is very appropriate given the ongoing significance. Cheers, Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 03:07, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
@Peacemaker67 Made an appropriate rewrite with academic sources, but the article was already GA approved beforehand. You think this is good enough to put up for an A-class review? Hsnkn (talk) 17:30, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
@Hsnkn Tbh I think that it could pass an FA review. Although, first, you could list this at WP:GOCE to iron out any small prose issues 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 18:25, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:2002 Marib airstrike/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Hsnkn (talk · contribs) 21:17, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: DeadlyRampage26 (talk · contribs) 04:02, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
Hi, I'll take this review. I'll come back shortly to get started


### Initial Comments
Overall, the article is well put together. It is well set up and easily navigated. From what I can see, the article does not meet any immediate failure criteria. I personally have a few things that I see that would improve the article, but it's not failure-worthy and I will go through and fix a couple things soon. I'm a big fan of appropriate photos in articles, so I'll try find a couple if possible. Overall, good job, and I look forward to further reviewing this article!


### Review Criteria