User:Berns6/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating
Medieval architecture

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I've always loved Architecture and buildings especially old ones with significance because, I feel like understanding why people built the way they did helps us understand their culture on a much deeper scale then just by reading about them. I did a big paper last semester about Swahili Architecture and the fascinating things I found were countless. It Gives you a glimpse into everyday life of a people and you gain a sense of who they were and what they would do on the daily basis by looking at where people spent their time. This article barely scratches the surface of what a better understating of middle age architecture could teach us. So much has been left out that can give us a better understanding of

Evaluate the article
The lead section is concise and to the point. It summarizes what is going to be talked about in the article like the types of structure and the styles. The lead section being short is not a bad thing in this case because it does its job perfectly. The content within the article includes brief description of each type of architecture they included. Much more detail could be provided along with real life example to get a better understanding of how they really worked out. Including the materials used to build would be a good start. Along with where they were in town because location mattered. There are also more then just religious military and civil buildings. Civil buildings alone is a large category and it has the least information about them. This would include the common person house, workshop, and marketplace. When talking about towns It is important to look at how they were set up for functionality, something this article didn't do. The sources all come from reliable historians, the only red flag I can see is about half of them are from the same guy. Having more opinion leads to better research and if you only focus research under one author you can miss things. The organization is clear, just lacking content. It does a good job separating the types of architecture so we can distinguish between their functionality and looks. Then it moves into the different styles and talks about how they came into play which was well done. Looking at the talk page the first thing I notice is this is part of the wiki projects for the middle ages, as well as for architecture. The article is in the start phase was was given top importance. That tells me the article is in need of some work. The article has some pictures present but needs some better ones to get a better view of what the main topic of the article is, architecture. Overall i would give this article a C because it is fairly average, with some highpoints like the styles, and lowpoints with the types of architecture. By improving the section about the types and adding example this article could be saved.