User:Jackr8106/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Worshipful Company of Fishmongers

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article by randomly searching through pages filed under English history of 1272. I chose it because it seemed intimating and I had never looked at a Wikipedia page like this thoroughly before. Pages like this one matter because they compile a lot of information and statistics and put them in one place. These statistics are be compared to those of other companies. I was initially very scared of this article because it has many big word, but I found I was able to understand most of it if I read slowly. I was not able to understand every word, but I could get what was trying to be conveyed.

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 too short for me to get general grasp of what the the company was. The lead section also assumes the readers knows more than I think should be assumed. The lead section is good at giving context but no statistics about the company. It is not a general summary of any kind.

The Content is quite general but comprehensive. The article gives an overview of the history of the work the companies has done and who has worked for the company. Much of the content has to do with how the company was run and by whom. The content is displayed well enough for the most part.

The Tone and Balance is very dry and neutral. It is a hard read. The article throws quite a few numbers at the reader without much time to breathe. There doesn't really seem to be any sort of narrative being written with this article. This article just seems like a very data driven document.

The Organization is great, for what there is to organize. The sequence for the sections makes sense and they flow nicely. The writing quality is gets the job done, but isn't remarkable.

The Images and Media is lacking with only two pictures. It would be nice to have one or two more.

The Talk page and Discussion is quiet and has no activity.

My overall impressions are that the article has some great information but could benefit from being rewritten. It is a very dry read, which might turn some people off. I like the way the article is organized, but I would have liked to see one or two more pictures. The article is decent, but could definitely be improved.