- Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
For the most part everything is relevant, in the section about Santamaria’s life and death they discuss her family as an aside when they are discussing her depression. I found this to be distracting, I would have written them as separate sections or even paragraphs because they did not seem too related. The article spends too much time talking about Castro and Che, how Santamaria helped them, at times this article reads more like an article about them not her. For example, it discusses how Castro wrote in lemon juice in his manifesto to hide a secret message, as interesting as this piece of trivia is it has nothing to do with Santamaria.
- Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
The article seems very neutral, it does not go into Santamaria’s politics just her life and what she was able to accomplish for the revolution.
- Are there viewpoints that are over-represented, or under-represented?
The article did not discuss her politics or Batista regimes feelings towards her, only that they saw her has a threat. These viewpoints could be included more in the article but it implies how the government feels towards her.
- Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
All of the citations except two do not have links attached. The two that have links are working and they sources do seem to say what the article claims. However, there is a lot more information in the sources that was not included in the article, which is highly disappointing.
- Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
This article needs many more citations, I am a bit of an over citer but this article goes multiple sentences without citing. From what I can tell most of the citations are from American scholars which will bias the analysis, this bias is not acknowledged. There seems to be only five original sources that the authors just cite over and over again.
- Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
I would have like to see more about her personal feelings about the revolution, why she was motivated to join. Since none of this is in the article and it would add a lot to the article.
- Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
There is nothing on the Talk page.
- How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
This article is rated start class. It is a part of Biography, Articles for creation, Cuba, and Women’s History.
- How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we’ve talked about it in class?
The article discusses Santamaria’s depression and her suicide which we did not discuss in class. Other than that there was little difference in content covered. But Wikipedia definitely framed her involvement in the revolution more around how she helped the male leaders than we did in class.
P.S. When I wrote this no one had used this article, but I didn’t post it for a while, so here we are.