User:J119M/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Mont-Saint-Michel Abbey

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 chose Mont-Saint-Michel Abbey because I enjoyed learning about it in class.

It matters because it is an important historical site, especially for architectural history.

My preliminary impression was that it has a decent amount of information, good formatting, and a good number of sources for the length of the article.

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

 * Yes
 * It includes some of the sections.
 * No
 * Concise

Content

 * Yes, I think each of the sections are important to include.
 * Yes, it was recently edited. There was one statistic from 2010 that is out of date.
 * None that I found.
 * No

Tone and Balance

 * Yes
 * No
 * No
 * No minority or fringe viewpoints found.
 * No

Sources and References

 * Yes
 * Yes
 * Yes
 * Yes
 * I think this article has some great sources, for example UNESCO.
 * Yes

Organization and writing quality

 * I think it is. No over explanation and it is very easy to read.
 * I didn't find any.
 * The article has very good organization, especially the history sections. I think all of the major points were covered.

Images and Media

 * Yes, the architecture section has pictures that correspond to the different parts of the abbey mentioned.
 * All of them looked good.
 * I believe so.
 * Yes

Talk page discussion

 * Not many conversations. I saw one about an editor asking others to check their work. The article is rated low importance.
 * Rated as C-class. It is part of WikiProject France, WikiProject Catholicism, and WikiProjectArchitecture.
 * Not enough information.

Overall impressions

 * I'm not sure what this means.
 * The strengths are the images and media used, the history sections, and the architecture sections. I recognize much of the information from class in these sections.
 * The "Heraldry" and "Modern pilgrimage" sections are a little thin. I'm not sure, however, if there is anything else of substance to add to them.
 * I think the article is complete. No recent edits have added anything large, just small fixes. I don't think there is anything else necessary to add.