Talk:Active design

Contents
Formatting Issues: Don't state Active Design and your name at the beginning. Place table of contents after lead. Bold Active Design in the first sentence. Make citations throughout article/ cite after every other sentence or paragraph.

Lead is clear and summarizes article well. Tone is especially good, remains neutral while showing importance of active design.

Sometimes sections get off topic when you're giving the definition of things not necessarily related to active design. In History, for example, you give the definitions of overweight and obesity, which kind of get off topic. Instead try linking them to wikipedia articles so people can get the definition if they need it and the focus can stay on active design.

Typos?: "buildings encourages" in second to last sentence in second paragraph in History, "In the field of engineering can also use" in first sentence of Disciplines

There's enough information on active design and it's clear. I just don't know if the headings quite match the information given. The last two paragraphs of History especially start to lose their relevance. You start promoting active design more than how it can be. Effects also starts doing this. Disciplines and Future is good though. CATRHET130 (talk) 21:48, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

The formate of your wiki article is not right. The table of content should go after the leading section. And the lead section is very clear. For wiki article you should have the foot note, so that people can know where to find the information. And some of your information is not really match each other. For example, under "effect", you do not talk a lot about effect, maybe add more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lingjian Fan (talk • contribs) 22:01, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Vernacular architecture
The discussion in the second paragraph of the "Implementation" section seems to be derived from studies of the impact of active structure design, primarily in India, and primarily with regard to increased energy efficiency. While it seems likely that these statements could also apply to implementation of "active design" principles, I did not find any such discussions in the literature. The single cited source (cited using a university specific url) might be Yousuf, Wael. "The Challenge Of Sustainability In Developing Countries And The Adaptation Of Heritage-Inspired Architecture In Context." Archnet-IJAR 5.2 (2011): 106-118. Art & Architecture Source. Web. 2 Nov. 2016. which is not about active design for health at all, but rather sustainability. General discussions, such as this one about rebuilding Germany after World War II, touch on the issue. "Supporters of  using  contemporary  architectural forms to re-build Germany saw their way as the only one that could truly deal with the past.  Opponents of tbe new building  designs complained about a loss of culture, heritage, and national symbols; a denial of what it meant to be German; as well as a heightening of confusion in an already chaotic world." Vees-Gulani, Susanne. (2005) "From Frankfurt's Goethehaus to Dresden's Frauenkirche: Architecture, German Identity, and Historical Memory after 1945." The Germanic Review: Literature, Culture, Theory 80.2: 143-163. --Bejnar (talk) 06:14, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Future
With regard to the future of "active design", someone with access to Adams, David, Robert Croudace, and Steve Tiesdell. (2011) "Design codes, opportunity space, and the marketability of new housing." Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 38.2: 289-306. might be able to elaborate. --Bejnar (talk) 06:14, 27 December 2016 (UTC)