User:Lgilbe11/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.)

Agen Cathedral

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 this article because I thought it aligned with the theme of the class. Since the article is about an architectural structure, I thought it would be beneficial to see how others have written on the theme, as well as to see how the article could be lacking or how it maybe could be improved on.

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 lead section of this article was very good since it was very clear and concise. It describes a bit about its location, construction, and history. However, there are some minor sections, such as the part on organs, included within the article that are not referenced directly in the lead section which could cause someone to wonder why it was specifically added in comparison to other things. Furthermore, it mentions that it was listed as a historic monument during 1863 and even connects it to a source, but that bit of information is never brought up again in later sections.

Content

Most of the content seems to be relative to the subject in some way and each part even receives a suitable amount of weight in regards to their relevance. Although it is fairly short and could use a bit more information on the specifics of its interior decorations, everything it has is connected to it, so nothing is really out of place. In addition to that, it appears to be up-to-date since it was last edited not to long ago, in June 2022.

Tone and Balance

A very neutral tone is applied to the article and there are no noticeable biases or over/under-representations.Sources and References

Overall, the sources appear to be reliable, broad, and backed up, each of them coming from a reasonable place. The only one I question is one that is attached to a web-link that does not work. Other than that, some of the older sources are primary ones, while the more recent ones appear to be relatively current.Organization and writing quality

Like the lead section, the article itself, is clear and concise! There are a couple sentence in the beginning and end of the Organ section that confused me since they were a bit incoherent and did not seem like a complete sentence, even after I had attempted to reread them. Other than that though, the key points all seem to be reflective of the topic and theme.

Images and Media

Following the copyright regulations, the article included a couple different images based on different parts of the building. Each of the images are labeled but some could benefit by being more specific, as in the one simply labeled Interior.

Talk page discussion

There are no current discussions on the Talk page for this article.

Overall Impressions

My impression of the site is that it seems like a good start but it is a little underdeveloped. It includes an unbiased point of view, offers basic overall information, and is pretty clear and concise. However, I think there are opportunities to improve it by adding more information on it, fixing some incoherent phrases, and being a bit more specific in areas, like when it comes to the titles of the images. Since there was not an active talk page, there were no statuses other than C-Class, Mid/Low-importance by some WikiProjects.