User:PandaBananaMarie/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
All Hell Broke Loose (Provide a link to the article here.)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose to evaluate this article because it was listed as a Stub but it seems pretty complete to me. i wanted to evaluate it more closely and pin-point exactly where it might need more work. (Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

Evaluate the article
Lead Section The lead section has the bolding and summarizes the main point of the article/what they are talking about. It doesn't mention the subsections of the article however, and mentions an event not covered in the article, though it does link the article.

Content. I think there is content missing because though it covers the documentary it mentions things in history that are not really explained. I think it does deal with the equity gap as it addresses conflict with Jewish and Arab populations.

Tone and Balance. The article does a good job explaining the documentary without putting personal biases. The retelling seems factional/not opinionated even though the documentary itself is probably pushing an agenda.

Sources and References there are no sources in this besides the documentary itself. this i have questions about though because the articles purpose is to talk about the documentary itself so isn't it okay that it doesn't have other sources?

Organization and Writing this article has reader friendly vocabulary and is easy to read. It could however use more organization/sections detailing characters or even a timeline breaking down the documentary in more detail.

Images and Media only one picture is featured and there is no explanation of what it is or even where it is from.

Talk Pages no conversations going about revisions just a flag to remove a photo and notice of it being added to the wiki projects page. No ideas or changes being discussed.

Overall Evaluation okay after breaking it down i can see where it would need work/could be better. even though the article is sufficient/serves a general purpose of brief description to tell people what it is, it doesn't go into detail. it could be better, more organized, with some sources. --PandaBananaMarie (talk) 21:57, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

(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.)