I felt that every heading in the entry had a justifiable reason to be included.

Again, there was nothing that I found to be distracting or not immediately relevant.

There are times when the article spends its few words of a paragraph to mention personal opinions of the leaders (and therefore governments) during the Ten Years of Spring (e.g. Jorge Ubico saying that the indigenous population resembled donkeys). I can imagine some would say that this is not relevant to factual historical analysis but I feel that it holistically represents what would influence the contemporary administrations.

The viewpoints of women of the revolution felt especially lacking, considering there’s a list of three imprisoned leaders of a communist movement under Ubico where Graciela García, one of the only women mentioned by name in the article, doesn’t have her own page.

Yes; there are links to important players like United Fruit Company and the USA, and under the reference heading it seems almost as though they are the subject of the most articles.

The references listed seem to be from who I could incorrectly be assuming are not Spanish speakers, so that could skew primary source analyses from having to rely on translations.

The oldest article listed in as a reference is dated 1982, which while not out of modernity, is still before the fall of the USSR and being published in Texas could potentially have biased information regarding communist threads in the revolution.

This article has been deemed a “good” publication, and has a peer revision that is archived.

This is a part of the WikiProjects for Guatemala, the Cold War, and Military history.

The brief mentions of Guatemala we’ve had in class have regarded US-backed coups and the United Fruit Company, so it does make sense that great bulks of this article on the revolution regard both of these subjects.