User:K.ravichandren/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Biomimetic architecture

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I think that this is important because we see both bio (which is life or the story of life) and architecture which are buildings that we see everyday. I also chose this because architecture is one of my favorite subjects to study and also seeing how everyday life can affect this. This also involves spatial data which I learned in my course that I took (GEOG 280) that is why I was very intrigued by this article.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section

The first part includes who made biomimetic architecture and explains what it is. The lead does include a brief description of the topics and how it works. It does not show any information that is not in the article, The lead in my opinion is overly detailed and explains quite too much for it to be an introductory section and does not really explain about the levels in the article.

Content

The content explains what was said in the introductory section but in more detail and explains it quite well. The last time the article was updated was 31st of December 2020, it was updated not that long ago and the information is still relevant. All the content seems like it belongs where it should be. This article does not talk about equity gaps, nor anything about the population.

Tone and Balance

This article is more detail orientated then opinion based information, the information is more factual than from anyone's point of view. There are no biases they mostly talk about the technology used and the history behind how it came to be. They have sections and one of the sections is called criticism so the viewpoint is not overrepresented nor underrepresented. There were not a lot of viewpoints and if they were, they were accurately stated. Since the article is mostly facts and history there is no persuasion happening.

Sources and References

Most of the secondary references are from university and governments websites, The information on the websites have lots of information and can reflect the information that was presented. The sources is only a couple years old to the present. 26 different contributed to referencing this article. There isn't any random websites or peer review to click, most of the links works.

Organization and writing quality

The article is very tidy and the information is very clear, most of the information is very informative and followed by pictures so you do not get bored reading a lot. The article is very clear and does not have that many grammatical errors, The article has a content section where you can see specific points of the article and to see different levels.

Images and Media

The images are very helpful and make the information more clear so you would not get bored of what is in the article. The caption under the picture represents what the picture is, all the images adhere to the Wikipedia regulations and do not apprehend the copyright rules. Beside every topic there is a picture to represent that information.

Talk page discussion

No big discussions talk about how the article is C-class are certain things about the article, The article is rated C by the Wikiprojects. They talk more about detail and importance and they have a importance scale to review it on.

Overall impressions

This article is pretty good but the information at times can be boring and long but the pictures make the article more interesting, One of the strengths are the amount of pictures that bring more interest to the article, I think that one of the improvements should be that there is too much detail for some parts and reading it getting very boring. I think the article is well developed but very wordy.