User:Academiax/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Israeli–Palestinian conflict

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I chose to evaluate this article because this is a topic I am interested in, but also this is a topic I am well informed about. I wanted to see how this information would be presented in the form of a wikipedia article. Moreover, because I know about this topic, it would be both interesting and easy to judge whether or not this information is presented in a high quality manner.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

The lead of this article is good because it gives an overview of what the article will be about and it briefly talks about the article's main points. It is a pretty general summary and briefly highlights all of the article's sections. Although I do disagree with the way that some of the content, the structure of the lead is good.This article does have a gap. It has a section for the background and history of the topic, but does not delve into important history. For example, it doesn't even talk about the increasing anti-Semitism in Europe during the 18th century which led some Jewish individuals to push for a nation-state in Palestine. The article does not talk about Zionism when Zionism should have an entire section dedicated to it. That background is extremely important because it explains every single thing happening in Palestine today. Furthermore, there isn't even a section dedicated to the Nakba which is a very important element of this story. As for the tone and balance, the tone is neutral, but I feel that it is not objective. If someone totally unfamiliar with this subject were to read this article, they would probably have an inaccurate understanding of this matter. The article can be neutral and shed light on the matter in an accurate way at the same time. As for the sources, there are a lot of sources cited. However, some of them are questionable. Also, some facts are listed without any in text citations. The organization of the article is well done as the information is structured well and neat. There are also good images provided. The talk page shows some discussion. However, after reading the comments by some users, I would not trust this article to be a good source for learning now that I know what kinds of people have contributed to it. The comments they were making reveal their biases. For instance, someone had a problem with the term occupation being used to describe Israel's military occupation. Overall, the article has some pros, such as having an abundance of information and a good structure, but it needs a lot of improvements.