Talk:Architecture of Houston/GA2

GA Reassessment
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.''

This article is in very poor state, in part as result of edits since its last GA review in 2009, however there are also issues which haven't been picked up in previous GA reviews. Currently the article badly fails criteria #1 Well-written and #3 Coverage&focus. It's structure is incoherent, and while the 2009 version had a chronologic structure to start with, the current structure is confused, abandoning a logic based on architectural expression changing over time, in favour of an ambiguous use of overlapping building type categories such as skyscrapers, landmarks and public buildings. This is confusing as both skyscrapers and public buildings can be and often are landmarks. Furthermore, most of the prose is a serial description of buildings, rather than synthesis of the city's architecture. This is reflected by the sources used, mostly relating to individual buildings. Thus this article which is meant to provide an overview of the architecture of Houston, seems to have been put together by original research and without the use of relevant literature, such as:
 * Fox, Stephen (1990): Houston Architectural Guide: American Institute of Architects Houston
 * Mod, Anna (2011): Building Modern Houston
 * Parsons, J and Bush, D. (2008) Houston deco: modernistic architecture of the Texas coast
 * Scardin, B et al (2003): Ephemeral city: Cite looks at Houston

Beyond these major structural issues, there are multiple problems throughout the article which are not worth detailing at this stage, but for the sake of example I mention:
 * First sentence : "The architecture of Houston includes a wide variety of award-winning and historic examples located in various areas of the city of Houston". This is meaningless: all large cities include "award-winning" buildings of some (here unspecified) kind, all cities established more than 100 years ago will have some significant "historic examples" and obviously all buildings are located in "various areas".
 * Second sentence : "From early in its history to current times, the city inspired innovative and challenging building design and construction, as it quickly grew into an internationally recognized commercial and industrial hub of Texas and the United States." Vague and unfocused, leaving it unclear when its "early" history started, when did it grew quickly, and not clarifying why being recognised as an "industrial hub" is of relevance for architecture.
 * Still in the lead: "Houston has many examples of residential architecture of varying styles [...] Post-war housing constructed throughout Houston reflects many architectural styles". Repetitively vague.

It seems that there is massive work to be done to lift the article from what I see as C-class to GA. Possibly the best way to start improving it is to revert it to the 2009 version, or even complete rewrite using more relevant literature as indicated above. I will allow however some time for comments and improvements before I close this review. -- ELEKHHT 21:36, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delisted per above. -- ELEKHHT 20:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)