I've listed this article for peer review because I want to try to get this page to GA status soon. In addition to the standard stuff for peer reviews I want to know if there are any missing sections that are needed for an article about a geographical region. I also want to know how can I expand the Lede section of this article. Thanks, Abo Yemen✉ 09:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As requested, I will review this article from the point of view of achieving GA status.

• One very important thing at GA is the presence of inline citations which verify every part of the prose content. This is not the case currently. Many sentences, and even sometimes paragraphs, in the first four sections do not have any citations.

• You have correctly identified that the lead section is too short. It is quite easy to expand the lead—all you need to do is make sure that every section in the article is summarised. At the moment, the "History", "Exploration", "Geography and geology", and "Economy" sections are not summarised. If you included those, making sure to balance them appropriately (so the history summary would take up more space than the economy summary), you could easily have a two or even three paragraph lead section.

• The sections an article needs often varies depending on the precise nature of the topic. One method that you can very often do is take a look at high-quality articles on similar topics (in this case, regions), which could give you an idea of what you could include. On regions, see Dorset (an FA), Slavonia (a GA), and South India (a GA). Looking at them, I think a "Culture" section might be a good idea, maybe along with a "Politics" section and a "Demographics" section.

• • I also don't think that there is any real reason to separate the "History" and "Exploration" sections here: surely the latter can be merged into the former?

• The prose is better than I expected; there are just a couple of errors in the "Economy" and "diaspora" sections. A visit to WP:GOCE would probably help iron out any remaining deficiencies.

In general, I think that there is an above-average foundation here, but that the article really needs some good work to polish into tip-top condition. Look at Dorset, Slavonia, or South India for inspiration if you get stuck. Feel free to ping me if you have any questions.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First time giving, instead of receiving, feedback on a peer review...

• Is it really necessary to list every tributary wadi in a bullet list? I'd give the number and mention the names (less than four) of any especially notable or large ones.

• Images are very dense at the top of the article, but nearly absent at the bottom.

• Prose itself looks pretty good.

• • First sentence of § Mountains too detailed... I'd 1) remove the bracketed transliterations etc. and replace "mountain range in Yemen" with something a little more specific. (nearby)

• Citation 25 doesn't verify the population stats nor mention Mukalla, unfortunately.

• Just my opinion: consider rolling in the (Arabic:) etc. from the lead into [note 1] to reduce clutter.

• Citation 37: is a more specific link possible]?

Will say more soon. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 17:16, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]