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.
Hey, the sentence describing the DRE as pro-Castro was a mistake, now corrected. Sorry about that. As for the rest, wouldn't linking sources to specific claims be the most practical way to present it for the reader? I would hope my readers would go on to read the sources, both to check the veracity but also to get more informed on the specific claim and neighboring elements within the history of JFK. The core argument here is that Oswald had, as the HSCA put it, the "fingerprints of intelligence" all over him. Him being alone or with others on that day is a separate story, deserving a separate piece.
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.
Hey, the sentence describing the DRE as pro-Castro was a mistake, now corrected. Sorry about that. As for the rest, wouldn't linking sources to specific claims be the most practical way to present it for the reader? I would hope my readers would go on to read the sources, both to check the veracity but also to get more informed on the specific claim and neighboring elements within the history of JFK. The core argument here is that Oswald had, as the HSCA put it, the "fingerprints of intelligence" all over him. Him being alone or with others on that day is a separate story, deserving a separate piece.