Wikipedia Article Analysis

"Charles I"

Charles I was king of England from 1625 until his death in 1649. His reign as king can be highlighted by his constant disagreements with parliament, and national religion. His stubbornness to comply and reason lead to England’s only Civil War in which Charles I would repeatedly end up on the losing side. With all the national and religious tension surrounding the years 1642-1649 it was only fitting that when Charles I was eventually captured and tried, he would be executed for treason. Cromwell would regain power, and for a short time the monarchy would be disbanded. Later however Charles II, Charles son would reestablish the monarchy.

1. 9,280 words
2. The search term I used was “Charles I,” and the exact article title is “Charles I of England.”
3. The disambiguation link consists of articles related to the topic. A number of articles can be found here most are concerning the civil war and parliament however.
4. The discussion page is a forum where people can voice their disagreements and or suggest needed changes in the article. You can also ask questions, and point out errors. In this particular article there are a number of people pointing out errors in the article. These errors are usually concerning grammar or dates.
5. Their have been 500 changes made to this article. The earliest being on December 21, 2002, and the latest being on November 21, 2008.
6. 30 external links are provided.
7. 47 references are provided.
8. 19 entries under further reading.

This article is particularly perplexing, because the amount of information provided would lead you to believe that this article is completely credible. However after reading all the discussion and history you get the impression that although there is an abundant of information a lot of mistakes are present. This leads me to believe that a number of the facts are not entirely credible. As for recommending this article to other who is interested in the subject I would definitely give them the go ahead. A lot can be taken from the article, but I would be sure not to use this article as a primary source.