User:SRobert99/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.)

1980 murders of U.S. missionaries in El Salvador

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 to evaluate because while it has a decent amount of content regarding the acts and subsequent context, the historical background is pretty lacking. It seems interesting that people took the time to add multiple paragraphs regarding the ramifications of the murders but give only a sentence describing how the missionaries ended up in this situation. Having U.S. nationals murdered by a foreign military is generally a significant event yet I have never heard of this. I find it interesting that while the Carter administration initially pressured the Salvadoran government with restrictions on aid, the Reagan administration subsequently loosened these restrictions and denied the involvement of regime officials in the deaths.

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.)

Lead Section The lead section of this article effectively introduces the topic in a concise manner, including the who, what, when, and where while leaving out any superfluous information.

Content

Although the article covers the broad details of the event, it fails to provide some context or more descriptive details in many areas. One of the most lacking parts of the article is the historical background. It seems that most of the time worked on this article was spent discussing the consequences that came as a result of the murders. Much of the content is also rather dated, some of the details surrounding the soldiers who were responsible for the murders incarceration is from 1998. This may be difficult to find more modern details on the individuals which could explain why the information is so old.

Tone and Balance

This article seems neutral for the most part, however, it does seem somewhat biased in some areas. It depicts the Carter administration more positively than the Reagan administration, focusing on the inaction and even dismissal of the murders by the latter.

Organization and Writing Quality

The article is concise for the most part, however, leaves out some important context in areas.

Images and Media

There is only one image which seems to be properly sourced.

Talk Page Discussion

There doesn't appear to be any dialogue in the talk section, it seems like only one person has been active. The author asks for some feedback but receives none.

Overall Impressions

This article has a decent start but is lacking in several areas.