User:Ewhiteh6/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: Ventilation (architecture)
 * The article could include more information about the relationship between hospitals and ventilation, both in historical design and present standards.

Lead evaluation

 * The lead begins well, but quickly loses focus.
 * The description of sections within the article is unclear and lengthy.
 * The lead contains information about water heater, furnaces, boilers, and wood stoves, none of which appear relevant to the rest of the article. It discusses that some such appliances utilize direct ventilation, but the article is focused on architectural ventilation.
 * The lead lacks organization and is too lengthy. It is more similar to a content section than an introduction.

Content evaluation

 * The content is generally up to date, but could be better selected.
 * Some content (ex. "Smoking and Ventilation") lacks relevance.
 * A section about the impact of ventilation on medicine and vice versa would benefit the article.
 * The article should, at the least, discuss the way that ventilation is intertwined into architecture in general, rather than just the standards for and types of ventilation.

Tone and balance evaluation

 * The article has a section titled' "Problem." While the benefits of ventilation can be inferred from the other sections of the article, there is no distinct section for them as there is for "Problems."  On a cursory glance, one might believe the article to hold ventilation in a negative light.
 * The article more heavily represents the specifications and standards of different types of ventilation, while neglecting architecture.

Sources and references evaluation

 * Most of the sections (ex. "Problems" and "History") contain only one source. Some sections, (ex. "Personalized Ventilation" and "Ventilation and Combustion") contain no sources.
 * Many of the sources are more than a decade old
 * Many sources do not contain links.

Organization evaluation

 * The article lacks organization. The format does not follow a logical progression.  History ought to be addressed earlier in the article, for example.
 * Some topics should be further consolidated into subcategories (ex. "Natural Ventilation" and "Smart Ventilation" could be grouped under "Types of Ventilation".
 * The writing could be improved for more clarity.
 * Unnecessary information, especially in the lead and "Standards" sections, could be removed to make the article more concise.

Images and media evaluation

 * There are only two images, each depicting forms of natural ventilation, neither included in the natural ventilation section.
 * The images do a better job than much of the article at connecting ventilation and architecture, although this connection is could be more emphasized in the captions.

Talk page evaluation

 * There are many comments and suggestions to improve the organization of the article.
 * There is also a comment on modifying and updating the "external links" section.
 * The talk page is relatively quiet, but the comments are very pointed, suggesting that there is a lot of work still to be done on this article.
 * This article is of interest to WikiProject: Physics/Fluid Dynamics, Engineering, and Architecture. The article has been rated "start class/ low importance" by all of these projects.

Overall evaluation

 * This article's status is "start-class."
 * This article has great potential. The existing materials contains a good basis of ventilation architecture to be improved upon.
 * This article could be greatly improved by focusing its discussion. This would include a reorganization and trimming of current content, as well as the augmentation of what is already present.
 * The article is both underdeveloped and poorly developed. It strays from the focus of the article and discusses objects of lesser importance in great length.