User:Veranosa/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Popery

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose the article about Popery because it relates to the research I'll be conducting this semester for the history 200 project. This is an important topic because it relates to the Protestant versus Catholic debates since 1522. It could explain why the US is predominantly Protestant Christian. My first thought when I opened up the article was that it seemed to be much shorter than I expected. I figured there would've been more subheadings and information.

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.)

Lead Section: The first sentence does a great job giving a quick explanation of the term and the reason for its creation. The history section is kind of a given, as the word needs to be placed in its context, so I'd say the lead section gives a general overview, then the history section goes into its earliest uses; as for the Crypto-Papism, that was not mentioned in the initial lead. There is mention of Thessaloniki is the lead section that is not brought up later, so I think it'd have been better to include in the history section. I think it's pretty concise without too much extra fluff--the only thing that feels out of place is the final sentence.

Content: The content feels relevant and helpful to help me and other readers understand the topic. The article was most recently updated on the 16th, and it's been edited several times within the past year, which tells me that it's very much up to date. Everything reads as though it should be included, and I'd say there could even be more added about popery in specific areas like US or different nations in Europe; I think that could help expand the ideas even more. Depending on how one views Catholicism, it might seem like it's bringing attention to an oppressed group.

Tone and Balance: Nothing strikes me as biased or as someone trying to get me to pick a side, which I think is a good sign. There aren't any parts that lean to heavily to one side, and I don't think there is anything in this topic that could be underrepresented, except for maybe the opinions Catholics had toward this word. No persuasion attempts that I can see.

Sources and References: There are a lot of articles, though I think there could be some more books utilized for a wider range of info. Many of the sources are from within the 21st century. The links seem to work, though one was not added. Luckily, the citation could help the reader find the info quickly.

Organization and Writing Quality: I think it's structured very well and allows the reader to grasp the main points without having to take in too much info at once. It reads clearly, and I do not see any errors in grammar or spelling. The sections are nice, though there could be more as I said earlier.

Images and Media: I really like the images they chose and captions that accompany them--they reflect the view of Catholics from the 1570s to the early 1800s, and they prove the strength of the anti-popery beliefs. The captions are really helpful, and I don't think they infringe on any copyright issues since they are cited, as well as many of the key terms within the blurb. I think the second or third one could be moved to the other side just to spice things up and make it look a tad bit more appealing by shifting some text to make it seem like less of a large amount to take in.

Talk Page Discussion: There are definitely some debates over whether or not the word is a slur, as one commenter once tried to claim that it was on the same level as the n-word. People who responded were adamant that this is not true and it should still be kept in Wikipedia. One person said some of the info is incorrect because "Roman" Catholic should be used every time since Anglican Catholics had different beliefs towards the pope. No one ever responded, but I think one sentence in the article could clear that up. Some commenters said there was strong anti-Protestant bias in the article back in 2008, so they changed much of the wording to remain more neutral. There are three WikiProjects for this page, each of which relate to Catholicism/Christianity/the pope.

Overall Impressions: I can't find where the status is, unfortunately, but I think it is really good overall. It has lots of easy-to-digest information without being too heavy or complicated. I do think it could go more in depth with what it means for Catholics and how it impacted relationships between people within Protestant countries. That might help its complexity and intrigue. I think it's well-developed, but could still have some more info to make it even better.