User:J1013r18/Evaluate an Article

User: J1013r18/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Abbey Church, Nykøbing Falster

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I have chosen this article because I find that abbeys as buildings and what they represent is very interesting. This abbey in particular looks interesting in style and the article looks like it could be improved upon.

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:

This lead section looks good as it outlines where it is, when it was created, and a quick summary of why it was built. This is a great lead section for someone who wants the very basic outline of this article and information regarding the abbey.

Content:

Overall, I felt as though this article could be reworked. The content, while largely relevant and on-topic, had a bit too much personal thought and emotion within the article. I also found there to be insufficient sources to back up the information. In some of the sections, the wording was unclear. In other places, the content was not sufficiently developed and left me confused.

Tone and Balance

The tone is quite neutral, however, as stated above, I felt as though there was personal assumptions within some sections of the article. Statements such as, "The church must have been completed..." leads me to believe that it was a personal assumption as to when it was completed without any sources to back up the claim.

Sources and References

There are only two references made, one being an external link. There could have been more research done to help support claims that were made. While the article has many links to other Wikipedia articles, there is simply not enough outside information shared.

Organization and Writing Quality

The organization of the article was done well. The flow of which sections came next was done well. The writing quality was not as good. There was confusing sections and sentences that did not make sense. There was an area where the writer had brought up how the building was built in periods but did not explain what or when theses periods were.

Images and Media

There are a few images at the bottom of the article showing some of the important items within the abbey, and one of the abbey itself. Overall, it is good.

Talk Page Discussion

There is no discussion on this page besides the 'Internet Archive Bot' editing the 2 external links. It does appear to be a part of Wikiprojects. Within the WikiProjects sphere, it had little importance in its categories.

Overall Impressions

Overall, I think the basis of the article is okay, but when looking closer it is evident that it is missing sources and needs a bit clearer writing. With a simple rewrite, this article could be greatly improved. The lead section of this article is the best while the initial section in Architecture and Fittings could be improved. This article to great at giving the basic information needed, but it needs to go a little deeper. J1013r18 (talk) 22:08, 22 September 2023 (UTC)