User:JCLemke/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Tourbillon)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because horology is something I'm very interested in, and know a decent bit about. The article seemed short enough where it can be given a good evaluation and critique -- as some pages in relation to horology are very high quality. In short, it's something I'm passionate about and something I know enough about to critique.

Evaluate the article
Lead section -- The lead very quickly describes what a tourbillon is as well as its function. All information in the lead is present, and there is no pointless information, it is concise and to the point.

Content -- The content covers it's history, what it does, why it existed, and everything a good wikipedia article should. Although there are a few hyperlinks that do not have articles created yet, everything is up to date and no notable content is missing.

Tone and Balance -- The article goes more into the history of the tourbillon rather than what the tourbillon actually is, I feel the history should take slightly less presence in the article.

Sources and References -- Everything is properly sourced, there are dozens and dozens of sources just for an article about a single watch complication.

Organization and Writing Quality -- Everything is concise, clear, free from bias, and is quite interesting to read.

Images and Media -- All images enhance understanding, showing the movement itself and all are properly captioned. No notable issues.

Talk Page Discussion -- The talk page is people going over minor inconsistencies within the article and regarding mechanical watch movements themselves. The article has a C rating overall.

Overall Impressions -- The article's status overall is a C, and while everything flows cleanly, I think the history should be spared slightly in favor of what the movement actually does -- the article goes into great depth about every maker and improvement of the tourbillon, and while interesting the history section can get wordy in comparison to the rest of the article. I believe the article is more developed now after many edits -- when looking over the history there were many inconsistencies regarding even the basics of the movement.