User:HungryP2/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
2020 Beirut explosion

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 this article because I remember hearing about the 2020 Beirut explosion on the news when it happened but I never followed up and looked up why it happened or if anybody was held liable and I came across this article under the accidental chemical accidence section on wikipedia for this assignment. Although I do not think it's an event that has global significance, It's an event considered one of the biggest non-nuclear explosions in history and it highlights how negligence can lead to big consequences. Additionally, being a chemistry major, I was also fascinated by the chemical reaction responsible for such a huge blast.

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.)

I think this article is organized perfectly and I appreciate that there are links to videos and images that highlight the explosion. The videos chosen show the magnitude of the explosion and make the reader get a feel of how the explosion looked. I appreciated that there was a section made to discuss a popular conspiracy theory that has spread about the event. The article does not seem biased and every statement is linked to a source, with the article having over 300 sources! I appreciated that in the talk page, there were editors suggesting changes to death toll numbers but not linking reliable sources and other editors calling them out on it. I noticed that there was a section made titled "damages" that goes on to describe damage caused by the explosion to surrounding buildings, hospitals, embassies and museums. However, I also noticed that after the "damages" section, there were two more sections tittled "shipping" and "airport" that go on to describe damages done specifically to nearby ships and airport. I think these two smaller sections are not needed and could have easily been summarized in the main "damages" sections. These two sections just added to the length of the article without providing any useful information that likely just hurt the article's concise summary.