You wrote: "a CIA-affiliated anti-Castro group called Student Revolutionary Directorate (DRE)." And then immediately wrote: "about the aforementioned PRO-CASTRO group DRE." So is it for or against Castro? And why do you have so few sources, just in the form of links in the text? Surely you understand that the topic you're writing about is one of the most dangerously connected to the stereotype of a 0 sources redneck in a tinfoil hat. When writing an article, you should assume that the reader is dumb(I am) not charitable (I'm not) not interested, with a 5-year-old's attention span (check) and not believing anything (check). Maybe I could do a better job as a reader, but I'm really put off by the sources. I'm not going to click on each link, watch the full interviews, and verify that what you said about them is true. Not to mention that a lot of what you said was hard to follow--how does half of it prove that Oswald wasn't alone? Your article on Africa had a much higher standard, imo.
You wrote: "a CIA-affiliated anti-Castro group called Student Revolutionary Directorate (DRE)." And then immediately wrote: "about the aforementioned PRO-CASTRO group DRE." So is it for or against Castro? And why do you have so few sources, just in the form of links in the text? Surely you understand that the topic you're writing about is one of the most dangerously connected to the stereotype of a 0 sources redneck in a tinfoil hat. When writing an article, you should assume that the reader is dumb(I am) not charitable (I'm not) not interested, with a 5-year-old's attention span (check) and not believing anything (check). Maybe I could do a better job as a reader, but I'm really put off by the sources. I'm not going to click on each link, watch the full interviews, and verify that what you said about them is true. Not to mention that a lot of what you said was hard to follow--how does half of it prove that Oswald wasn't alone? Your article on Africa had a much higher standard, imo.