User:Meg's Goldfish/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
1992 Windsor Castle fire

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because it falls under my interest of architecture. I had never heard of this event before, and it peaked my interest. This article is important because this fire could have caused great damage to a historical and important property, as well as endangered the lives of the many people and public figures that live at Windsor Castle. My first impressions were that it seemed like a well formatted article with pertinent information in the box, and I also like that it includes pictures. However, it does not seem to be too long, though that does not mean it won't hold any valuable information.

Evaluate the article
Overall, this article was well-written. The lead section was concise and did not contain any distracting information that was not relevant to the topic. It explained what this event was, a little bit of what happened, and why it was important. The article is sectioned into smaller parts which makes it easier to read. From looking at the citations, the article does seem to be up to date. The most recent source from which it sites is from 2018, though the majority of the sources are from around when the event actually happened, which makes sense as most likely no more new information will come out regarding the event. All of the links that I checked do still work, which is good. There does not seem to be any bias, and the writer focuses only on the fire and what comes of it, not any political associations that may come from the castle being one of the homes of Queen Elizabeth II. It may be a good idea to include the public's response to this event, as it did result in some monumental changes, such as Queen Elizabeth II agreeing to pay income tax from 1993 onwards. I believe this would help to round out the article a bit better. The images provided are well-captioned and are placed next to the text that they relate to. I think it would be good if some more pictures were included of the actual damage, instead of just what it looked like before and what it looks like now after the restoration. I would also like to see some more pictures (if available) of the artworks and historical furnishings lost during the fire, as they are mentioned but not currently pictured. I do not see any glaring grammatical errors, or any run on sentences. Each section is fairly concise and to the point, so it is a very easy article to follow. The ease of reading is aided by the subheadings, which are ordered in a sensical fashion. Looking at the Talk page, this article is of interest to 6 WikiProjects, though the talk page is extremely bare. Checking the history, there have been some revisions and suggestions, but I don't think a lot of the suggestions have been fulfilled/updated. This article serves as a great foundation for more information and pictures to be added. It is clear and concise, but seems to have a couple areas of possible misinformation, one of them being in the lead section. Also, the infobox does not need to contain "Property Damage" as that is too broad to be part of the box, and should instead be just in the article itself. I would like to see more information in the Tourism section, as it does not seem to fit under Extent of Damage to the Castle. Maybe it could if tourism information pre-fire was given, as we do not know from this article if it was allowed or not. This article could benefit from some additional information as well as updating any suggestions. Great job!

-~