User:Tbeaisasn579779257/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Grigory Potemkin

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article to evaluate because it has to do with something with another topic I aim to improve/add in Wikipedia and evaluating it would help me grasp the topic a little more. Seeing the article, I personally expected it to be small however was surprised to see a detail article with a lot of information.

Evaluate the article
To start evaluation of the article it fulfills the first part of it. Giving a very basic introduction in the first sentence, what you need to know in the first paragraph, and the reminder gave a summary of the whole article although it sometimes goes a bit too detailed. Thus, it succeeds in all points with a few improvements needed.

The content of the article continues to show high quality. Almost all content is related to the subject (although some details are too much or unrelated to the topic). Regarding the dating all of it seems up to date. Coming to content included or not included this depends on one’s opinion I believe it should briefly discuss a few figures that met with him however it is a possibility that the editors will disagree with me. Overall, however it’s a strong article including a lot of information.

When the article comes to tone it’s still has flying stars albeit lower than the previous two point. It mostly sticks to a neutral point of view although its does say some points that places the article towards some sort of opinion. However, it seems to follow a neutral and it’s not trying to convince the reader of a certain point of view.

Sources are strong though it seems like it lacks from many primary sources. Secondary sources on the other hand are numerous with high quality sources all around using mostly academic books. Although, there are a few claims that are given “clarification needed,” or “citation needed,” so the article still needs to work on sources a bit more.

Images are well used to explain who it is and where a place is. All of this gives the readers a larger idea of the topic like where he died, what is his coat of arms, where some of his battles were fought, and some pictures of him. There are however images that are simply out of place or not provided any context. These either needed to be given better clarified or removed.

The Talking feature revels a whole new world of this article. With it being listed as a “good article,” in early 2011. There are several debates including the way to spell a name, about the subject’s relationship with Catherine the Great, and other ideas. Unlike class the debate doesn’t involve a topic or how something happen but how to mention it or spell it. Some are basic such as how to spell the name (in other Wikipedia pages before I evaluated this page, I saw debates about if they should include x or not).

Overall, the article is a good one. It gives all the information one needs. It also tries its best to give a natural view of the subject. It needs however to remove some words/sentence to improve it. It needs to be developed a bit more on a few issues however its very well developed.