# Talk:Embassy of the United States, Mogadishu

The article's section titles should be descriptive, eg. "Closure and evacuation" not "Operation Eastern Exit" and "After closure" rather than "United Task Force" (which is not accurate, because it served both UNITAF & UNOSOM II). The term "embassy" refers to the collection of infrastructure that houses the diplomatic mission; thus, it's better to use "Embassy" rather than "Infrastructure". Furthermore, because the embassy houses the diplomatic mission in a host nation, the article should contain information about what has happened to the diplomatic mission to Somalia since the Mogadishu embassy's closure. That's why I've replaced the content about the ambassador with the content about the diplomatic mission (which includes the ambassador). AHeneen (talk) 21:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Those are not neutral titles. Per WP:HEADER, titles should best represent the content and neutrally. The most neutral and representative titles for the sections are therefore "UNITAF & UNOSOM" and "Operation Eastern Exit", which are the actual names of the main pages. Also, this page is on the actual embassy in Mogadishu, Somalia, not Nairobi, Kenya. The United States embassy in Nairobi is therefore irrelevant, although the actual U.S. Ambassador to Somalia is certainly relevant. Middayexpress (talk) 22:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
The section titles "Prelude to closure", "Closure and evacuation", "After closure", and "Embassy" are best representative of the contents of those sections. How can they be considered not neutral?? And there was nothing about the embassy in Nairobi! I added a section about the US mission to Somalia; the US mission to Somalia (which is more than just the ambassador!) is what was based at the Mogadishu embassy and it's therefore relevant to mention in this article. Since the US has no diplomatic mission in Somalia, the US mission to Somalia is based at the US embassy in Nairobi...but the content I added was not about the Nairobi embassy, it was about the US mission to Somalia. If there's anything irrelevant in the article it's your addition of the following in the "United States Ambassador to Somalia" section:
"The Federal Government of Somalia was later established on August 20, 2012, concurrent with the end of the TFG's interim mandate. It represents the first permanent central government in the country since the start of the civil war. The following month, Hassan Sheikh Mohamud was elected as the new government's first President. The election was welcomed by the U.S. authorities, who re-affirmed the United States' continued support for Somalia's government, its territorial integrity and sovereignty. In June 2014, in what she described as a gesture of the deepening relations between Washington and Mogadishu and faith in Somalia's stabilization efforts, U.S. Undersecretary of State Wendy Sherman announced that the United States would soon name a new ambassador to Somalia."
I've requested a third opinion and am waiting for that before reverting the above issues, but will go ahead and make a few minor corrections. AHeneen (talk) 00:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Honestly, I'm not even sure what there is to argue about here. Per WP:SUMMARY, headings should be consistent with the main articles they link to. "UNITAF and UNOSOM", "Operation Eastern Exit" and "United States Ambassador to Somalia" are therefore indeed per policy the most neutral and appropriate titles for these sections since those are the actual names of the main articles. It's also strange how you appear to believe that the establishment of the Transitional National Government, the Transitional Federal Government and the Federal Government of Somalia (i.e. the United States' actual diplomatic partners) is irrelevant, yet apparently not Siad Barre's relationship with the Soviet and Chinese, dead bodies, unrest in other areas, and the US Embassy in Kenya. If we can agree that the latter are irrelevant, I don't mind trimming the former. Also, the passage on the number of official US personnel in the city that was reduced from 147 to 37, etc. pertains to Operation Eastern Exit and thus belongs in that section. Please see below for the rest. Middayexpress (talk) 16:31, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
By the way AHeneen, your summary close of the delisting discussion vis-a-vis the former Anarchy in Somalia page was inappropriate as an WP:INVOLVED editor in this dispute. Middayexpress (talk) 17:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
AcidSnow, as one of the main editors on the Mogadishu page, would you mind sharing your insight here? Middayexpress (talk) 16:31, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


### Section headers
On the issue of section headers. Short descriptive headers are what is needed. By titling them with Operation this or that there is no indication of what the section is going to be talking about and therefore are pretty much useless to a casual reader. The links directly below the headers provide operation names and links to more detail. Repeating these as section headers is redundant as well as confusing. The argument that the short descriptive titles are "non-neutral" makes no sense. If the editor making that claim feels strongly about it I would suggest that they make a reasoned argument to that effect rather than a simple assertion.  Jbh (talk) 01:32, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you feel the section titles in this revision are appropriate for this article? AHeneen (talk) 01:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I would support those headings. They require no prior knowledge of events and clearly break the time down as  before/during/after. As to the 'Embassy vs Infrastructure' debate my thought is 'Embassy' is OK. I would prefer 'Embassy Compound' as it distinguished between the Mission staff and the actual physical plant. Calling it 'Infrastructure' sounds like the section will be discussing water/power/sewer etc. Jbh (talk) 02:25, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Those headings are inconsistent with WP:SUMMARY. Please see above. Middayexpress (talk) 16:31, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
The linked articles are there for greater detail of what occurred in the time period being defined by the section headers. If a reader comes to the article they are more likely to be asking the question "What happened when the Embassy was evacuated?" not "What was Operation Eastern Exit" if they know what that was they will go to the article. Same for the others. Remember you are writing for casual readers who likely know nothing about the topic. Jbh (talk) 17:15, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm just pointing on what policy stipulates here, which is ultimately what we go by on the website. Middayexpress (talk) 17:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
I do understand where you are coming from, however service to the reader is primary. In this case the article has a bit of a focus issue. The intro defines the article as "The Embassy of the United States of America to Somalia was a diplomatic mission of the United States of America inMogadishu, Somalia from 1960-1991" ie the Diplomatic Mission not the physical plant. Reading the headings things are divided by location and by 'operation' which is confusing. Breaking up the sections by time gives consistency. As it stands a reader will likley face these issues: 'Old Compound' , 'New Compound' is this a division of time or place - what is the topic; the 'operations' are these serial or simultaneous, if serial are they contiguous in time or separated by other events. While these may be obvious to an informed editor that is not the case for a reader with no familiarity with the subject. Jbh (talk) 20:05, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Right, but that US diplomatic mission was suspended in 1991. That's why Wendy Sherman indicates below that the mission itself would reopen "soon"; so the focus needs to remain on the mission presence in Mogadishu itself. That said, I can see how readers may perhaps be confused by "Old compound" and "New compound" vs. "Embassy compound". That is why I think "Infrastructure" worked better, as that section pertains to the embassy's actual grounds and facilities. Perhaps "Premises", "Grounds" or "Facilities" would work better there? Middayexpress (talk) 20:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes I think we may see a similar problem but differing solutions. In my experience if an Embassy is free standing it is referred to as "the Embassy" if it is walled it is "the Embassy Compound" but the main working area is still "the Embassy". Collectively the staff and/or the legal entity are referred to as "the Mission" or sometimes "the Embassy" but the latter is more old fashion. The issue with 'Old Compound' is that the article is really talking the "Mission to Somalia" from 1957-1989 and less about the building the Mission was housed. The same for 'New Compound' is more about the Mission from 1989-1991, after they incidentally moved to another location. Finally we have Eastern Exit when the Mission ceased to be resident in the embassy compound. I would end Section 1 there. I would then make a new Section 2. Here the history of the Embassy Cy ompound and the Mission split. The new home of the Mission in Kenya can be discussed and the re purposing of the compound for UNITAF and UNOSOM can be discussed. Jbh (talk) 20:53, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
"US Mission to Somalia (1957-1989)" and "US Mission to 1989-1991" seem like adequate alternatives to "Old compound" and "New compound"; thanks. However, the next three sections should be titled in accordance with their main articles per WP:SUMMARY. So that would be "UNITAF and UNOSOM", "Operation Eastern Exit" and "United States Ambassador to Somalia"; the mission in Kenya isn't a formal diplomatic mission to Somalia per Sherman. The "Embassy compound" section discusses something altogether different i.e. the embassy's actual infrastructure/grounds. It is also chronologically independent, so for these reasons I think it should remain separate from the preceding sections. Middayexpress (talk) 21:09, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

How about something like this: I have no idea how to format indented text hence the outdent

Jbh (talk) 21:25, 8 March 2015 (UTC)PS The only objection I have to 'US Ambassador to Somalia' as a section title is is is confusing in context. Jbh (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

That's not bad. However, I think Operation Eastern Exit should be on the same level as the preceding mission sections. It should also be juxtaposed with UNITAF & UNSOM, as they were all during the period between when the US mission ended in 1991 and the diplomatic reengagement with the Somali transitional authorities and then federal government beginning in 2000. So perhaps something like the following would work best:
 Middayexpress (talk) 21:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
I have to disagree with that. Both UNSOM(1992/1993-95) and UNITAF (1992-93) were after the Mission was evacuated and the compound was decomissioned as an 'Embassy'. Eastern Exit (1991) fits properly under the 89-91 Mission because that is what terminated the US diplomatic presence in Somalia ie a subsection of the Mission 1989-1991 section. What I am trying for here is a set of clear chronological periods since it is a History section. The other reason I do not like UNSOM/UNITAF as you have above is that they are associated with the Compound not the Mission. From 1957-1991 we have the history of the Mission to Somalia terminated by Eastern Exit. After 1991 there is the Mission for Somalia in Kenya and the use of the embassy compound by UNSOM/UNITAF. The character of what is being discussed changes but there is no indication in the table of cotents. A bit pedantic true but the headings are what the help request on the Project page was for...
My preference is what I outlined above but I can see:

As a valid alternative.  Jbh (talk) 22:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
You're right about Operation Eastern Exit, as it was in late 1990 rather than late 1991. I also agree that UNITAF & UNOSOM were separate from the actual US diplomatic missions to Somalia; this is why I noted above that they were between these missions. At any rate, those headings seem adequate. Middayexpress (talk) 22:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Great! Would you care to do the honors? :) Jbh (talk) 22:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 Done Middayexpress (talk) 23:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
There's nothing in WP:SUMMARY that says the section title needs to reflect the main article's title. In fact, the example given for WWII contains "Chronology" for the main article "Timeline of World War II", "Background" for the main article "Causes of World War II", and "Italian invasion of Ethiopia (1935)" for the main article "Second Italo-Abyssinian War". The new headers aren't bad, except "Operation Eastern Exit" and "UNITAF and UNOSOM" should be given better titles for the reasons expressed earlier in this discussion...they should convey the subject of the section to the casual reader. As such, I suggest "Closure and evacuation" and "After closure" as better titles. AHeneen (talk) 18:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Actually, those very headings you note are consistent with the link-through pages. "Chronology" with "Timeline", "Background" with "Causes", "Italian invasion of Ethiopia" with "Second Italo-Abyssinian War", and "Spanish Civil War" with "Spanish Civil War". "Closure and evacuation" is less descriptive than the operation's actual codename, "Operation Eastern Exit". "After closure" is even less appropriate, as it places the emphasis on the earlier embasy closure rather than on UNITAF and UNOSOM. That said, WP:HAT stipulates that for more pages on the same topic ("Further information ..."), {{Main}} is used to make summary style explicit, when used in a summary section for which there is also a separate article on the subject:
{{Main|Main Article}} → 
The headings therefore should indeed be consistent with the main pages they link to, as they are now. Middayexpress (talk) 19:46, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Keywords are subject and topic, "Closure and evacuation" is descriptive of the subject Operation Eastern Exit. The content of the "UNITAF and UNOSOM" section is on the topic of what happened at the embassy compound after the embassy closed, although I now think the title isn't too bad. However, "Closure and evacuation" instead of "Operation Eastern Exit" is still better for casual readers to understand the subject of the section at a glance. AHeneen (talk) 20:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Since Eastern Exit is now a subtopic within the 89-91 Mission history I see no real need to change it. It is the operation that ended the 89-91 Mission. About the only change to headers that might be useful is another major heading talking about what happened after the Mission ended in 91 like I described above. However I see no particular enhancement to the article by doing that right now.  As it stands Section 1 is structured as a chronology and Eastern Exit is an event within that chronology, Jbh (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Operation Eastern Exit and the other headings are indeed adequate. Middayexpress (talk) 16:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


### Mission
This removed content seems useful:In 1989, after three decades located in a building near the center of the capital, the embassy relocated to a new compound on the outskirts of Mogadishu. As unrest enveloped Mogadishu around New Year 1991, the embassy was closed and hurriedly evacuated on January 5-6 and has remained closed ever since. The former embassy subsequently served as a headquarters for US personnel within Unified Task Force and, after control of the mission was transferred to the United Nations, a base for UNISOM. The US mission to Somalia is currently based at the US embassy in Nairobi, Kenya. The US hopes to reestablish an embassy in Mogadishu once the security situation permits. In my opinion it should be replaced. I struck part that I think needs a citation. Otherwise it is an improper comment in Wikipedia's voice. Cheers. Jbh (talk)
I presume that is from the lead and you think that's a better wording than the current revision? The sentence that you struck is not an opinion, but from the US State Department press release about the nomination of the new ambassador: "As security conditions permit, we look forward to increasing our diplomatic presence in Somalia and eventually reopening the U.S. Embassy in Mogadishu." (White House Nomination of United States Ambassador to Somalia, Feb 2015) AHeneen (talk) 01:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
OK, as long as there is a reference for it I have no objection. Jbh (talk) 02:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
The passage is inaccurate, as the embassy was not "closed ever since" January 1991. It was in fact subsequently used as a base for UNITAF and UNOSOM, both of which are already noted. Please see below for the rest. Middayexpress (talk) 16:31, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
If the Mission is gone the 'Embassy' is closed. The 'Embassy Compound' may be in use but its no longer has the legal protection of being an 'Embassy'. Please correct me if I am wrong in this understanding. Jbh (talk) 17:06, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
The United States' diplomatic mission at the embassy ended, but not US operation of the embassy compound. Middayexpress (talk) 17:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


### Other issues
I removed the adjective 'bloodless' describing the 1969 coup. Without reference it is a POV term. I have some other non-specific concerns that this article might have some NPOV issues but I need to spend more time looking it over to see if that is actually the case or not. Jbh (talk) 01:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks and yes, more input would be appreciated. The other major point of disagreement is the inclusion of a section mentioning the status of the mission to Somalia (which includes the ambassador, reasoning is above & my version is in the linked revision) or a section about just the ambassador (see what is in the current revision of the article). AHeneen (talk) 01:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
I will take a look at that. Jbh (talk) 02:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Possibly something like this? The United States never severed diplomatic relations with Somolia. It has maintained relations with Somalia's Transitional National Government and its successors the Transitional Federal Government.  and the current Federal Government of Somalia although the US Mission to Somolia is housed in the US embassy in Nairobi, Kenya.In February 2015, US President Barack Obama nominated Katherine Dhanani as the new United States Ambassador to Somalia; if confirmed, she will be the first US Ambassador to Somalia since Ambassador Bishop in 1991. The Department of State hopes to increase its diplomatic presence in Somalia and reopen the embassy in Mogadishu when the security situation permits..
I am sure the wording needs tweaking since all I did was combine information from the two versions. I removed the excess wording about the Somali Government. The June 2014 comment seems unnecessary but I have no strong objection to it. Maybe title it something like "US Mission to Somalia post-1991" or some such. Jbh (talk) 02:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
That the coup that brought Siad Barre to power was bloodless is common knowledge [1]. At any rate, the paragraph above is slightly better then AHeneen's in that it at least notes the US' actual diplomatic counterparts in Somalia. However, it too omits the nature of the US government's relationship with those Somalian authorities. This is certainly more relevant than that between the former Soviet bloc and the Barre government, which is also noted. Moreover, Wendy Sherman's announcement in June 2014 that the United States would soon name a new ambassador to Somalia is important, as that's when she explained that it was specifically intended as a gesture of the deepening relations between Washington and Mogadishu and faith in Somalia's stabilization efforts ("President Barack Obama plans to nominate the first U.S. ambassador to Somalia in more than two decades, a top State Department official said Tuesday. Undersecretary of State Wendy Sherman called the decision "a reflection both of our deepening relationship with the country and of our faith that better times are ahead[...] "I would hope that in years ahead ... that we will see a full presence both in Somalia and by the Somalis here in Washington," Sherman said. "It'll take some time, but we take this in a step-by-step approach."[...] The United States and its European allies have strengthened diplomatic ties with Somalia since Hassan Sheikh Mohamud, a civil activist, was elected president in September 2012. The United States officially recognized the Somali government in August 2013" [2]). The passage should therefore read:
Over the ensuing interim period, the U.S. authorities maintained relations with Somalia's newly established Transitional National Government and its successor the Transitional Federal Government. The Federal Government of Somalia was later established on August 20, 2012, concurrent with the end of the TFG's interim mandate. It represents the first permanent central government in the country since the start of the civil war. The following month, Hassan Sheikh Mohamud was elected as the new government's first President. The election was welcomed by the U.S. authorities, who re-affirmed the United States' continued support for Somalia's government, its territorial integrity and sovereignty.
In June 2014, in what she described as a gesture of the deepening relations between Washington and Mogadishu and faith in Somalia's stabilization efforts, U.S. Undersecretary of State Wendy Sherman announced that the United States would soon name a new ambassador to Somalia. In February 2015, U.S. President Barack Obama appointed Foreign Service veteran Katherine Simonds Dhanani as the new Ambassador of the United States to Somalia. She will be based at the American diplomatic office in Nairobi, Kenya until security conditions permit the US embassy in Mogadishu to reopen. Middayexpress (talk) 16:31, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Over the ensuing interim period, the U.S. authorities maintained relations with Somalia's newly established Transitional National Government and its successor the Transitional Federal Government. The Federal Government of Somalia was later established on August 20, 2012, concurrent with the end of the TFG's interim mandate. It represents the first permanent central government in the country since the start of the civil war. The following month, Hassan Sheikh Mohamud was elected as the new government's first President. The election was welcomed by the U.S. authorities, who re-affirmed the United States' continued support for Somalia's government, its territorial integrity and sovereignty.
In June 2014, in what she described as a gesture of the deepening relations between Washington and Mogadishu and faith in Somalia's stabilization efforts, U.S. Undersecretary of State Wendy Sherman announced that the United States would soon name a new ambassador to Somalia. In February 2015, U.S. President Barack Obama appointed Foreign Service veteran Katherine Simonds Dhanani as the new Ambassador of the United States to Somalia.  She will be based at the American diplomatic office in Nairobi, Kenya until security conditions permit the US embassy in Mogadishu to reopen.
I do not have any real objection to the content as described here. For ease of reference I struck, above, what I think is excess. We do not need three seprate statements that the US is happy about the new government. It reads as very PRish and the election in and of itself does not have a direct link to the Status of Mission. I would then replace the struck-underlined text with a new sentence which says. The United States has no plans to re-open its Embassy in Mogadishu and the new Ambassador will run the Somali Mission from the Unites States Embassy in Nairobi Kenya until security conditions permit the Embassy in Mogadishu to reopen.Jbh (talk) 18:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks; that's much better than the previous suggestion. However, as long as the relationship between Siad Barre and the US is noted, I think that between Hassan Sheikh Mohamoud (the first president of a permanent government since Barre) should also be noted for balance. Also, Wendy Sherman officially announced that the US government intends to reopen its embassy in Mogadishu "soon", during the same period when she indicated that the US authorities would appoint its ambassador. Since the latter diplomatic appointment has come to pass, the last sentence should note the pledged embassy opening as well ("Wendy Sherman, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, didn't specify exactly when the mission would reopen but said it would be “soon"." [3]). Middayexpress (talk) 19:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
'Soon' is pretty vague I would say it is UNDUE per CRYSTAL unless and until some concrete plans are announced. I have no objection, in principal, to mentioning the new President maybe like ...The Federal Government of Somalia was later... ==> ...The Federal Government of Somalia, now headed by Hassan Sheikh Mohamoud, was later... Jbh (talk) 19:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
That "the Federal Government of Somalia, now headed by Hassan Sheikh Mohamoud, was later..." phrase seems like a fair compromise. "Soon" is pretty vague, but that's what Sherman indicated. Perhaps, then, we should drop it so that the sentence reads "in June 2014, in what she described as a gesture of the deepening relations between Washington and Mogadishu and faith in Somalia's stabilization efforts, U.S. Undersecretary of State Wendy Sherman announced that the United States would name a new ambassador to Somalia at an unspecified future date." Works? Middayexpress (talk) 20:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
It is still awkward considering the next sentence is " In February 2015, U.S. PresidentBarack Obama nominated Foreign Service veteran Katherine Simonds Dhanani to become the new Ambassador of the United States to Somalia." My preference would be to strike the entire ...2014... sentence but I thought you wanted the "...gesture of the deepening relations..." material. Personally I think it is unnecessary considering how short the section but that is a style not content objection. Jbh (talk) 20:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
The "in what she described as a gesture of the deepening relations between Washington and Mogadishu and faith in Somalia's stabilization efforts" explains why the US government decided to appoint a new ambassador after all these years, so it is key. The next part of the phrase is indeed awkward; it should have read "U.S. Undersecretary of State Wendy Sherman announced that the United States would reopen its diplomatic mission in Mogadishu at an unspecified future date". Works? Middayexpress (talk) 20:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Well enough... no objection. Jbh (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Great; done. Middayexpress (talk) 21:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
I found a source for 'bloodless'  Payton, Gary D. The Somali Coup of 1969: The Case for Soviet ComplicityThe Journal of Modern African Studies, Vol. 18, No. 3 (Sep., 1980), pp. 493-508. I have no objection to adding it back in. Jbh (talk) 18:52, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I already linked to one above from the Central Bank of Somalia [4]. Middayexpress (talk) 19:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
I saw that, I just found a link to a busy page of a State institution to be iffy. A state always has an interest in putting things in the best light. It makes no difference to me for the inclusion but a journal is better than a website in my opinion but like I said no big deal either way. Jbh (talk) 19:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Understood. Middayexpress (talk) 20:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
The repeated removal of variations of the following italicized text is not necessary: "The three-year-old embassy compound was at the time in shambles: dead bodies were located around the compound, buildings were stripped bare, and a foot (0.3 m) of trash and debris covered the floors of the chancery." It speaks to just how bad the embassy compound had become when it was reoccupied in 1992. AHeneen (talk) 20:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
It's not directly relevant to the US diplomatic mission based in the compound; that the embassy was at the time in a state of disrepair is sufficient. The passage also notes that "the staff quickly went to work cleaning out work areas and living spaces to establish a camp", yet this more relevant renovation work by the personnel themselves was somehow overlooked. Middayexpress (talk) 16:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Embassy of the United States, Mogadishu/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: BenLinus1214 (talk · contribs) 23:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Third on my "to review" list, after El Camino (The Black Keys album) and Adventure Time (season 6). Should get to it in a few days. Johanna (aka BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 23:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for picking up this review. Could you please wait a couple more days for the review? I greatly expanded the article in hopes of reaching GA status, but then had a very frustrating time dealing with another editor over the content of this article. The article eventually reached a state that was stable and I decided to go ahead and nominate the article (partly in hopes that if the GA reviewer thought the prose was odd, that would allow me to revert some of the changes). I realized that I haven't seen any edits from the other editor in a while and discovered the editor was topic banned for POV-pushing on Somalia-related articles (which is the problem I had with that user on this article). Knowing that, I'd like to make a few changes to the prose of this article. It was nominated back in March and I haven't edited this article since. Please just give me 2-3 days to clean-up some of the prose. AHeneen (talk) 20:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Okay, that's perfectly fine! I've now pushed it back behind Adventure Time (season 6 and one more article. This should be a few days until I get to it. I'll ask you before I start. Johanna (aka BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 13:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I just finished cleaning up the article...it's ready for the review. AHeneen (talk) 16:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
@AHeneen: Comments

Lead
"the security situation in Mogadishu deteriorated rapidly" how, exactly? Also, check this sentence again for structure!

You should probably be a little clearer here on the time frame between the request for closure and evacuation and the refuge for American citizens part. It's kind of odd to put a request for closure and evacuation sentence before a sentence that basically states that it was still being used.
Could you say why the embassy was relocated?
Probably should be "but she withdrew" not "but withdrew".
History
"Besides establishing a presence…" I would prefer "In addition to establishing a presence…"
I think you could expand a bit on American worries about Soviet influence in the region. A lot of useful information could be found in ref 9, particularly the paragraph that starts with "Relations with Somalia were very rough."
"As part of this mission…" The diplomatic mission or the mission to stop the spread of communism? I assume you mean the former--if that's the case, be sure you make it clear with the words that you're starting a new part of the para.
You could also explain a bit more about the events leading up to the Somali-Britain break.
For those of us unfamiliar to the topic, you should probably put Somalia's position on the Six Day War and why before the last sentence of that fourth paragraph.
Is most of the next paragraph all sourced to ref 4?
"After Somali-flagged vessels…" wait, US assistance wasn't terminated when the Peace Corps was ordered to leave? And assisting them in what?
Any source on the actions of the actual embassy during the '70s?
"later turned into a golf course" when?
The first para of "prelude to closure" I don't like on the writing front…especially the short "criminal violence was also increasing." Maybe the second part of that should go "By 1990, the Somalia's government had fractured, with criminal violence increasing, and the country soon became enveloped in a civil war."
"In 1967, Bishop…" to "...while serving as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Africa." why is this piece of information relevant to this article? The Six Day War was mentioned before, but it doesn't seem to be relevant to the Somali conflict. Also, this much background on Bishop just isn't necessary.
"violence escalated an order of magnitude" this is a bit vague and informal
Much of this subsection is really from the point of view of one person--do you have any others?
Be sure your formatting for dates is consistent--either MDY or DMY
Meanwhile, the USS Guam and USS Trenton…" source?
"including a couple exchanges of gunfire" is a little informal, perhaps do "including several exchanges of gunfire"?
an advance element of what? If it's soldiers, why was the request denied?
Throughout the day US and foreign nationals…" check the Soviet part of this sentence for structure and conveyance of meaning.
What are RPGs?
Embassy compound
There's a typo--should be "chancery" not "chancert"
"one of the most dilapidated buildings the State Department had." Either state that this was according to a particular person or that there was some sort of inspection that determined this.
In one of the image's captions, the term "Seabee" is a bit odd for those who aren't familiar with military terms--a link to Seabee would suffice.
Reader confusion: why would they raise the flag that was in Beirut?
"during his three-day visit to Somalia from December 31 to January 2" what year?
United States' diplomatic mission to Somalia
I would rename this section--possibly "Subsequent diplomatic relations and future embassy" because it's not all about the diplomatic mission.
Should probably be "never officially severed…"
You really don't need to include the text currently in refs 12 and 25--people who want to can easily find the quoted portions in the sources.
References
Why are you using Wikimapia?
Used checklinks and everything appears to be in order.
@AHeneen: Overall, a nice article on a topic that I knew very little about! Mostly just some writing points, particularly how it relates to the reader's understanding of the topic. On hold for now, but you should be able to fix it all. :) Johanna (aka BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 21:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I have made adjustments to the lead and fixed all the minor issues with the text.
I have scoured the internet, as well as the online catalogs of the Library of Congress and National Archives (US) for information about this embassy and I believe I have found just about everything that is available online (including digitized records/transcripts). I haven't been able to find:
anything about the actions of the embassy in the 1970s beyond what is in this article
exact date the land was turned into a golf course
much information about the events leading up to the closure & evacuation, except the information from Ambassador Bishop
The History section overlaps with the subject of Somalia-United States relations (noted with the "See also" hatnote under the section title). I think this section should only briefly discuss issues not directly related to the embassy (the editor that I disputed with was very keen to remove content that didn't directly relate to the embassy, but I managed to add some details). The embassy, like nearly all embassies, provides consular services (issue visas, provide assistance to Americans in distress), but mainly exists to promote US diplomacy with the country. I think it's relevant to mention that the main function of the embassy was to counter Soviet influence throughout the Cold War, but not go into excessive detail about US diplomacy in the region. The diplomacy issues mentioned are all directly relevant to the embassy, e.g. because of development projects carried out by USAID, USAID personnel made up a large part of the embassy's staff. Other than that, I have only minimally elaborated on a few issues you mentioned:
Regarding Somalia-UK relations, the sentence now reads: "The United States became the protecting power for the United Kingdom in Somalia after Somalia severed diplomatic relations with the United Kingdom in 1963, due to a dispute over the administration of the ethnic-Somali Northern Frontier District."
I added the bolded text about Somalia's "In 1967, the embassy went into a lock down during the Six-Day War between Israel and neighboring Arab countries, which Somalia supported."
Miscellaneous issues:
In my opinion, the two sentences you mention about Bishop's experiences are relevant, because he had so much experience with evacuations of US embassies
Development assistance didn't end when the Peace Corps left (the 3rd paragraph in the History section explains that USAID carried out a lot of development projects); I changed "assistance" to "development assistance" with a wikilink
"advance element" changed to "advance element of Marines", the reason the request was denied was not given in the sources (there's some speculation/hearsay, but no explicit reason given)
removed mention of flag from Beirut, not sure why it was added
I don't know of a good way to insert the year into Bush's visit. Except the first sentence, the preceding paragraph is in December 1992. The second sentence after the one about Bush's visit begins "On May 4, 1993". Since the visit spans two years, adding the year seems like clutter...eg. "from December 31, 1992 to January 2, 1993". It should be easy to understand the year from context.
"United States' diplomatic mission to Somalia" is a good title for this section. The term "diplomatic mission" is actually the term for a country's team/collection of diplomats to another country (or international organization), although the term is typically used for the residence (main offices/building or compound) of the diplomatic mission. US diplomatic missions (both the group of people and their residence) to organizations are titled "United States Mission to [organization]", omitting "diplomatic" but reflecting the meaning of "diplomatic mission" as the group of people not the building. In the section title, the key word is to (as opposed to in). As quoted in reference 25, "If confirmed, the Ambassador will lead the U.S. Mission to Somalia, currently based at the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi, Kenya." The first sentence of this section begins "The US has not had a diplomatic mission in Somalia since the closure of the embassy in 1991." But later: "The US embassy in Nairobi, Kenya serves as a base for the US diplomatic mission to Somalia." Since an embassy is the residence of a country's diplomatic mission, it is appropriate to mention the status of the US diplomatic mission to Somalia in this article, since the subject of this article is nominally its residence.
The first paragraph of the "Prelude to closure" section is fine. In the years before the collapse of the central government (in January 1991), the situation in Somalia is best described as rebellion than civil war. The Somalis associate with their clans and there are many throughout the country. From 1986-1990, violence in the country was mainly local opposition in various towns. Various tribes managed to have some degree of autonomy in the countryside, but the central government managed to keep control of major towns throughout the country. There was an increasing level of criminal violence and lawlessness in the later part of 1990, which is when the civil war broken...civil war indicating fighting between factions and fighting to unseat the central government, as opposed to opposition to the authoritarian government for local/tribal autonomy. I removed the remark about Barre coming to power in a 1969 coup, since that's already mentioned in the History section.
I think I've address all of your concerns, at least well enough to meet the GA criteria. AHeneen (talk) 05:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. If you would like, there's always the possibility of getting a peer review just to improve the article even more. Pass. In addition, I believe that the article is stable now that that dispute is settled and it's four months behind us.Johanna (aka BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 13:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Embassy of the United States, Mogadishu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150226051736/https://www.cna.org/sites/default/files/research/2791021100.pdf to https://www.cna.org/sites/default/files/research/2791021100.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:12, 3 July 2017 (UTC)