User:GoldFinch14/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Catherine the Great

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I clicked on the art history page, then went into art collectors, and her name sounded familiar, so I clicked on it. Catherine the Great was an Empress of Russia, so she is important in European history. At first glance, the page was organized in a way that was easy to understand and included several images.

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 includes a sentence that describes that article's topic and a description of its major sections, except for the early life section. The lead is concisely written and isn't too long or boring. The lead doesn't include any information that was not covered in the rest of the article. The article's content is relevant to the topic of Catherine the Great's life and legacy. The content is up to date as the history has not changed. There is not much mention of historically underrepresented populations, but does mention serfdom and the differences and similarities to slavery. There seemed to be no content missing or content that was added that didn't belong. It also mentions how Jews and people of the Islamic faith were treated and represented during Catherine's reign. The article is neutral and doesn't seem to try and convince the reader of anything. There are some grammatical errors and sentences that could be simplified. Most citations are from trustworthy sources, and only two seem to be from privately owned websites. In the personal life section, there are only four citations for Poniatowski, Orlov, and Potemkin. The links I clicked on worked and brought me to outside sources. The sources are current. The images and maps add to the article, and there are a good amount of them, accompanied by good descriptions. All the images are either public domain or protected by CC BY-SA 3.0. There are only five talk posts on the talk page, and one of them seems to be a joke or someone mad about the USA and Russia's current political standings. The four other talk posts are ways to improve the article, such as places where they didn't understand a sentence or where there were missing citations or no citations at all. The article is rated from B to C-class and from mid to top-importance. It is of interest to eight WikiProjects: Vital articles, biography, Russia, women's history, Germany, former countries, women in religion, and Wikipedia 1.0 v 0.5. Overall, the article is well-developed and is very thorough without being overwritten. The article could be improved by more citations in places where there are none and by some grammar editing.