User:Jamesalk/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Sabra and Shatila massacre)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(The high level of detail within the manner that this piece is written makes it a great piece to begin analyzing.)

Evaluate the article
(The lead section in this piece provides a great overall introduction into the discussion at large. This was evident particularly due to the introduction of both the casualties and those involved in the event. Due to the fact that the piece is discussing a massacre, these are the most pertinent pieces of information. The clear description of who was involved, coupled with the timeframe also adds to this in contextualising the piece accurately.

In terms of the content of the piece, the article adequately presents the setting by inadvertently showing that the matter was political. In stating that the massacre was a “retaliation for the assassination of newly elected Lebanese president”, the piece allows the readers to have all the facts on why the issue was brought about without any clear biases.

When specifically looking at biases with respect to tone and balance, its clear that given the nature of the issue being discussed that bias could be apparent. This article represents the facts solely in explicit detail and as a result does not find itself being party to these pitfalls. This is particularly relevant when seeing that the issue isn’t favoured towards one side and uses a myriad of sources to prevent this.

The sources are wide ranged and varied which allows for a true and unbiased discussion. Having sources from all sides, especially the United Nations and the then Israeli Defence Minister Ariel Sharon assists in providing a well-balanced discussion of the facts. The context that was provided about the warring parties that was mentioned previously is bolstered here when the piece discusses the various reactions after the massacre. The article uses over a hundred sources with an extensive bibliography and the sources themselves address each individual element of the event from a wide spectrum of voices that only bolsters its credibility as a prime piece for Wikipedia.

The article also does not shy away from detail in the sense that every element of the massacre and what led to it is discussed at length. This assists the article from a structural standpoint in that it reads well and doesn’t allow the reader to be confused, especially given the sensitive nature of the matter at hand.

The sensitive nature of the topic is partially ignored when images of the casualties are publicised. I will contend that the images could be seen as necessary but the descriptions within the various bodies of text should suffice.

Ultimately the text is well developed and thoroughly discusses the event without any clear prejudices.

~)