User:Curious Shrimp/Evaluate an Article

Natural Building
Natural building

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I am very interested in natural and sustainable architectural practices, and I am curious what Wikipedians consider relevant in regards to this subject. Initially, it seems pretty short, and it mostly lists a variety of techniques that are considered natural and therefore sustainable. However, as noted at the top of the page, it lacks sufficient citations throughout, and it is unclear which sources have provided the specific information referenced in this piece.

Evaluate the article
The lead section opens with a definition of "natural building," and it immediately connects this practice to sustainability. The following paragraphs give a nice overview of the subject, although they reference "Michael G. Smith" without providing any information on his credentials or role in the field of natural building. This section is also pretty long, although it does not introduce ideas that are not present throughout the article.

The piece's content is relevant to the topic, and the article provides detailed explanations of common natural building techniques. It also elaborates on the sustainable potential of these strategies and compares them to less conscientious practices. Each subsection is very detailed, but a few of them reference information that is not directly related to the subject or well cited. Overall, there seem to be a number of citation issues, and although there are a number of notes and credible references, a lot of content is not attributed to specific sources throughout the article. Despite the lack of in-text citations, the content remains neutral, and the authors reference multiple viewpoints without actively taking any sides. Additionally, the article does a great job of organizing the content into clear subsections.

This piece is well-written, and there are no obvious grammatical errors. The authors have done a good job of breaking the piece down into subsections that cover major aspects of the subject. A few sections are supplemented by photographic examples of various building styles, but it would be useful to carry this practice throughout the piece. It is unclear why the authors have only illustrated a few subsections, but the article would really benefit from additional photographs. When images are present, however, they are high-quality and well-cited.

The talk page reveals that the article has struggled with properly sourcing information, and it has received a B-Class rating. It is part of the WikiProject on Environment, and consequently, there is an interesting debate regarding the difference between green building and natural building. It seems like the piece is mainly authored by users who consider the two subjects distinct from one another, but there is a clearly established connection between the two. This piece seems pretty well-written and expansive, but the issues with sourcing are obvious and need to be resolved to establish more confidence.

(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.)