User:Esm95/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: Sustainable Architecture
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: Sustainable architecture is something that affects both the environment and the society that we live in, as people live in these sustainable houses or work and travel in these sustainable buildings.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?: Yes.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?: Yes - it says sustainable architecture "the use of materials, energy, and development space and the ecosystem at large," which are all sections of the article..
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?: No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?: No. It describes everything that happens in the article, and isn't too overly detailed.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?: Yes. It discusses sustainable resources, materials, waste management, and where buildings are placed.
 * Is the content up-to-date?: Yes - the oldest source is from 1990, but most are from the mid to late 2000s and early to mid-2010s.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?: No.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?: No - it mostly addresses the materials of sustainable architecture and the type of energy used for this architecture. The criticism section only talks about people criticizing sustainable architecture as not being that sustainable after all, when it could have addressed better how many of these sustainable homes are too expensive for lower-class populations to own and is a predominantly upper-class kind of architecture.

==== Content evaluation: The content is informative and all of the content is up-to-date, but it lacks in dealing with the fact that many people can't afford to pay for sustainable architecture, specifically sustainable homes, because solar panels and wind turbines cost too much for the average person to buy. ====

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?: Yes, and it shows the criticisms of sustainable architecture as well as the benefits it has for many people.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?: No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?: The viewpoint that sustainable architecture may not be sustainable for everyone, especially those who cannot afford it, is all but absent from this Wikipedia article. I think that showing that viewpoint as well as the viewpoint that it's good for people and for the environment would have been a good way to show that sustainable architecture isn't a realistic choice for everyone.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?: No.

==== Tone and balance evaluation: The tone and balance is neutral and only stating the facts. It also has a dedicated criticism section, but I thought that it could have included more about the inequality that comes with sustainable architecture, and how not everyone can afford it. ====

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?: The facts in the article are all backed up by secondary sources of information, such as academic journals, publications such as TIME, and reliable websites such as the EnergyStar website that outlines "norms and standards" that have been "formalized" and the United States Department of Energy.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?: The sources are thorough and do reflect the available literature on the topic.
 * Are the sources current?: The sources are somewhat current, the oldest being from 1990 and the newest from 2018.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?: The sources are written by a diverse group of authors, but I'm unsure if they included marginalized individuals where possible, since most seem to just be about sustainable building practices
 * Check a few links. Do they work?: The links I checked work, except the link to "Issue Brief: Smart-Growth: Building Livable Communities," which brought up a page saying something went wrong.

==== Sources and references evaluation: The sources and references are all from reputable and reliable sources. Although some of the links may not work - I didn't check every single one, so I'm unsure if they all do or not - most of them do. The sources are, at the oldest, 30 years old, with most of them being from the late 2000s and early to mid 2010s. I'm unsure if they include articles by marginalized individuals where possible, but I also don't know the race, sexuality, etc. of these authors. ====

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?: The article is very easy to read, and is organized in a concise and clear way. Even when I don't understand a certain topic, I can have a basic understanding of it after I read it in the article.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?: The article didn't have any that I could see.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?: The article is well organized and broken down into individual sections and subsections that kept the info concise and clear to read.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?: The pictures help give visual examples of how sustainable architecture actually looks, as well as how the energy sources look as well.
 * Are images well-captioned?: Yes - the images give context to what is happening in it, or what the image is a picture of.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?: Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?: Yes - they help break up long paragraphs and texts with colors and visually appealing photos that relate to the article.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?: There are conversations on the Talk page about wanting to make this article a part of the Green building Wikipedia page, and there are many differing opinions on if it should be merged together or not. There's also conversations about changing the Lead part of the article since both parts of it come from the same source, and also on someone considering if there should even be a Criticism section of the article at all.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?: The article is rated as a Start-Class article. It is part of the Wikiprojects of Architecture and Environment.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?: We haven't actually talked about this topic in class yet, but it did remind me of the reading we had to do by Ashley Colby, about how people grow their own food in order to be sustainable in their homes in Chicago.

==== Talk page evaluation: Overall, the Talk page isn't brimming with a lot of talk outside of merging the article with Green building, but it is a somewhat active talk page, even though its last post was almost a year ago. ====

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?: The article overall is a good article at describing sustainable architecture and the materials used and the types of energy used to sustain these types of buildings.
 * What are the article's strengths?: The article is good at describing energy resources and how these resources work, as well as how buildings are placed, and what materials are used.
 * How can the article be improved?: I think the article could use more criticism about how sustainable architecture isn't sustainable for everyone, and how it favors people who can afford to buy more expensive, greener options to sustain themselves and their homes.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?: I think the article is well-developed and very detailed about sustainable architecture and the processes used to keep buildings sustainable.

==== Overall evaluation: While it could use a little bit more of a critique on how sustainable architecture isn't accessible to everyone, it is a well-developed and thought out article that is good at describing sustainable resources as well as sustainable materials. ====

Optional activity

 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~


 * Link to feedback: