User:Ethan4757/Evaluate an Article

ＩWhich article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.)

Fallingwater

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

Fallingwater, one of the most iconic works by American architect Frank Lloyd Wright (June 8, 1867 – April 9, 1959), brought out a sense of naturalistic tone which I found pleasing to watch. In addition, I also like to know the historic background of this house and the reason it is the "most beautiful job" by Wright according to Time magazine.

Evaluate the article
(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.)

A good lead section in a Wikipedia article is what creates enough attention grabber to its readers while conveying the rational information from reliable sources. First of all, the lead of this article includes the most basic information that the reader wants to know, such as the name of the architecture, it's designer, construction date, and it's location. Secondly, the content of this lead also introduces the background story of this building and briefly conveys to the reader of how this building is significant even from Wright's other works. Lastly, even though sometimes the editor may add too many excessive informations and some were never mentioned again later in their article, this one is thoroughly written and able to create a continuous flow with the sentences. Overall, this article appears to have a great start even for those who knew minimum about the architecture; it helps the reader to prepare for the actual content without difficulties.

I personally see content as the most essential for a Wikipedia article, and a good content requires a clear direction for the expansion of each sub-topic. To start with, the first half of the content displayed an organized details of the architect's intention and inspiration for his work. However, I also believe that some part of the historical background in this article appears to be more than necessary; I suggested that the description of the building's exterior can be put in the second half of the content - the house design. In terms of the informations found in this article, the latest update I saw was from a referencing article published in 2019; I may assume that the article has not been edited with any significant changes for almost two years and it can be a disadvantage for those who needs to see the latest news of this structure. Like I mentioned earlier, the arrangement of the first half can be more precise due to some unrelating focuses. Yet, due to the effort of editors and numerous reliable sources, the entire description still concludes as a scholarly research of this house and its influence. Last but not least, the content of this article, despite some less important passage of the architect's relationship with others, emphasized a lot on building's inspiration and this can be a helpful source for those who studying architecture works. Together with the lead section, the article is friendly for anyone who search for it.

Any Wikipedia article, by any means, should not be biased to any topic. This article, just like many others in Wikipedia, has a neutral standpoint while sharing the characteristics of the house. In other words, no biased claims were made in the content and every section consists essential focuses with a neutral tone. Personally, i think the only viewpoint that appears to be over-presented is, which mentioned in the previous paragraph, the background story of how this house is constructed; other than that, everything is good. Fringe informations, such as the house's preservation and appearance in the popular culture were all mentioned and this helps the readers to acknowledge not only the house itself but also its influence to people. Lastly, without persuading the reader to any specific idea, this article remains neutral and reliable for everyone.

Since everyone can made up their own opinion online, academic research and scholarly books are the essentials for the article's content. In this article, all statements are backed up with a reliable secondary sources that relating to the architect and the house by magazine articles, university's research, and house's official websites. majority of these sources were throughly picked and they show how the editor rearranged them into one's own word. However, few sources in the article, such as certain websites, were down, which is a reminder to the editor that some informations are requiring an update. All these references were from different authors from several categories and time period. Yet the editor still managed to pick the most important ones and rearrange into one's own word without creating controversial arguments. Last but not least, the better sources, such as those from architect's bibliography and encyclopedia, are all available; even though some website links were lost, the important ones are still remaining and can be use for update in any time.

Once again, the writing should be clear and professional in any Wikipedia article and share knowledges in a well-arranged format. In the second half of the content, the details about the house's design and its current status were displayed clear and easy to read. Despite the first half appears to be less organized and having several names, other than Frank Lloyd Wright and other constructors, I find not directly relating to the topic, but I do believe this can be determined by what a reader is seeking for in this article. In addition, I didn't discover any significant grammar or spelling error that can cause the inconvenience to its reader. Overall, the entire article is organized in a comfortable tone; each section demonstrates distinctive categories that helps the reader to analyze this article.

Image, to me, is also another crucial factor that grabs the reader's attention and helps inspire the tough concepts. The varieties of images in the article is well selected and each shows the house in a dynamic and naturalistic behavior. Furthermore, each image includes a bullet point caption for the reader to comprehend immediately, which I see as an efficient and successful approach. Each of these images are following the copyright regulations by showing the person who took this image and where this image was discovered. Lastly, I think it is rather subjective to evaluate if the position of images is appealing to every reader. For me, these pictures, along with the article content, are truly engaging and catches the essence of the house. In general, the visual aspect in this article is relatively outstanding in terms of catching the reader's interest.

To evaluate an article, discussion is another notable consideration that since it shows how each editor cooperate to provide the article with new updates. Behind the scenes of this article, it appears that the conversations are mainly on how some viewers were not agreeing with the informations that are not directly relating to the house itself. In addition, I also see some correction that corrected the design of the house. This article is rated as a B-Class, which means, "The article is mostly complete and without major problems but requires some further work to reach good article standards." In other words, the article is in a complete condition but may not be valuable for academic researchers. it appears that Wikipedia editors were demanding for more details of the house for the scholarly research. Even though the page has not been edited for years, it is still surprising to see people participating this article with much care and to make it more complete together.

To conclude, this is an above average article that worth viewing for students and �ordinary people. I believe the strong points of the article are the use of images and the description of house's design. On the other hand, there are several improvements that can be done to make the article more professional, such as adding more house descriptions and to delete part of background stories along with expired reference links. In the end, despite there are few aspects of the content that requires further address, yet this is still a developed article which I will recommend to casual readers.