User:BellaGoose/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Prague)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I choose to evaluate this article because I have family in the Czech Republic and I am Catholic. When I visited them this summer I remember seeing many Catholic Churches in and around Prague. It matters because it provides important information about the leaders of the Catholic Church in Prague. My preliminary impression was that it is difficult to read because of it's format. It seems to have a lot of information, but that information is just listed.

(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

The lead section is concise and it describes the article. It does not include the sections it will cover in the article. It also does not include anything not mentioned in the article. The lead is concise as well.

The content is relevant to the topic. It is also up to date. However there is missing content. Some of the dates and first names are unknown. It does not deal with any of the equity gaps.

The article is neutral and does not provide bias to any side. It does not try to sway the reader in any direction.

The article has important information, but it is difficult to read. It starts with the repetitive use of the word Suffragan which is a word not commonly used. It would be helpful to include a definition of that word. It is broken down into helpful sections of it, but the organization of the text makes it difficult to understand.

The images are helpful. They have good captions and help add to the article. However including more of them would be nice, but it could be difficult to gain access to them.

It does not have a lot of activity on the talk page. It is included in the Catholicism and Czech Republic projects, but it is low to mid priority for both of them.

The article provides a lot of information, but it could be organized in an easier to understand way. That could include less bullet points and lists. It is developed, but it could use more information to fill in some of the blanks, but it is a very good start.