User:Liz Lipscombe/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/1860_civil_conflict_in_Mount_Lebanon_and_Damascus#Mount_Lebanon

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose to evaluate this article as it is linked to the course that I am doing so I feel my knowledge will help do so.

Evaluate the article
Lead topic provides a consise overview. Perhaps could be improved with an explanation of who the Druze are, however there is a link to the simple wikipedia on the topic so it helps the understanding. The lead sentence provides a good overview of the topic- perhaps repetitive repeating the sentence "civil conflict in Mount Lebanon" in a short space of time, but this is not a major issue.

The content of the page is good, providing insight into the historical background before going into the topic so the reader has more of an understanding. Repeat of the same point as before- could perhaps benefit from an outline of who the Druze population is. This is because they are consistently mentioned so it would help the audience to understand that they are an Arab religious sect. Knowing this shows the religious divide whihc underpins the conflict. Good overview of the way the war spread from Mount Lebanon to Damascus- demonstrated the spreading of violence. Interesting to also add the international intervention, helps readers to understand the different aspects of the conflict and contextualise the issue.

Sources are slightly shaky for this article. One of the sources repeatedly cited is from "www.marxists.org", this does not seem to be the most neutral of sources. The information provided in the reference does seem balances, however the page opens up with an analysis of the context by a Marxist in 1969, focusing on analysis of Arabic countries in the world capitalist economy. A lot of the other sources are well cited and are academically peer-reviewed. The links provied work and they present a wide range of authors, with works from the 1960s to 2020.

There were a number of spelling/grammar issues which I discovered in the process of this review (I have since changed them). They were minor, such as "pf" rather than "of". The organisation of the article is clear and well done- each section is highlighted well and signposted. The headings chosen add to the reader's understanding of the topic.

There is one image in the page. This is well chosen, highlighting Damascus after the fighting. It is clearly labelled and adds to the Wikipedia page. The image is also appropriate- coming from the public domain.

There is no talk page for the article.

I think that this is a good article overall- it provides a simple understanding of the topic and is easy to read. Going forward, I think that there should be some context provied about the Druze group, just to improve overall understanding of the topic.