Not everything in this article is relevant. There is a section titled: Alpha 66 and Lee Harvey Oswald. It is more akin to a conspiracy theory than anything else. It has only one source despite making sweeping claims and feels completely out of place on Wikipedia.

Although the article does not appear to come down on one side through its wording or message, I am certain that there is more information about the subject that is not included in the article. I also strongly oppose the section involving Lee Harvey Oswald, in its current state, as it has little basis in reality and could be easily contested.

The article should attempt to cover Alpha 66 from multiple perspectives. The most relevant of which would be the group’s perception of itself, Cuba’s perception of the group, the United States perception of the group, and the group’s reputation amongst non-governmental organizations and inter-governmental organizations. In reality, it barely covers even one of these viewpoints. It briefly describes Alpha 66 based upon the group’s website, but the information appears dated and shaky. There are superficial references to how people within the United States and Cuba, but never any firm viewpoint.

Although the few links that I checked are in working order and do appear to support claims made within the article, the majority come from online news websites and, in even worse situations, online databases that use a .com in their url. In no way would I claim that these sources satisfy Wikipedia’s reliable information standards. Newspapers and basic websites cannot be trusted to act as neutral sources in most cases. In spite of this, the presence of bias, inherent or otherwise, is never mentioned within the Alpha 66 article.

Many of the article’s links lead to old documents or dated news posts and there are massive gaps in terms of what is and what isn’t cited. Whole paragraphs are given a single citation at the very end, leaving the reader wanting. This is not surprising when one realizes that many of the claims being made in those same sections are seemingly baseless and often devolve into strange conspiracy theories.

The Talk page is filled with incredulous users that are unsure how to fix the page with its many “sourceless” claims, “conspiracy theories”, and “biased intentions”. Whole paragraphs have been removed for lack of sources and there were apparently claims in the article at one point that Alpha 66 was an “alt-right” movement because it was against communism.

This page is part of the following WikiProjects: Caribbean, Cuba (Inactive), and Terrorism. It is poorly rated and has a “needs additional citations for verification” banner at the top of its page.

This page discusses anti-revolutionary activities taken by Cubans after Fidel Castro came to power. This was briefly mentioned in class and during readings on several occasions, but never looked into with this amount of depth and specificity. Unlike those discussed in class and our readings, this article’s depth is questionable. The Alpha 66 page will need a major overhaul before it could ever be recommended as a good example of what Wikipedia has to offer.