User:Marcus Wiki Goat/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Natural building

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I've always found architecture interesting, but have no way to study it currently. Expanding my architectural knowledge on my own is a great way to combat that. This article is important because it introduces topics on sustainable building using un-processes, extremely abundant natural materials. We need more of this type of construction, especially in the U.S. On a preliminary reading, this article seems pretty well flushed out, wish some areas needing slight adjustments for improvement.

Evaluate the article
The lead section of this article does a good job of concisely introducing the article's main points. However, it doesn't do well to introduce the main sections of the article individually. The lead seems slight over detailed overall, but doesn't provide anything that the body doesn't, which is good.

The content is all related to the topic, and is adequately up to date. Because the practice of natural building is so old, the sources needn't be as modern as they would need to be for a science related article or something of the like. In some places, the organization of the article is slightly off, with section headers not applying to some of the information within them. The article is primarily organized into sections based on the different materials involved in natural building, but they don't seem to be sorted in a fitting way. The article also doesn't do well to address any of wikipedia's equity gaps.

The article's tone is neutral, with no minority viewpoints making and appearance, and no arguments being supplied for any one side. This topic has little risk for that to begin with, though.

The source section is a little lacking. While it does include a variety of source types, there aren't very many, and some of them are official websites for natural building products, which is never good. The links work and are current, but as stated before, some of the sources could be replaced with better peer-reviewed articles on the topic.

The writing is formal and free of grammatical errors. The organization of the article, as stated above, is confusing and unusual, and could use improvement.

The images supplied in the article do well to support the content, and are labeled in a way that's easy to understand and educational. Each section has one-or two accompanying captioned images, which is quite adequate. Many of the captions have links to other, more specific articles on the things pictured in them.

The talk page is civil and productive, with many of the suggestions being replied to and used, and nobody responding in unjust ways to edits or suggested edits. There are many contributors to the article, and multiple currently ongoing conversations. The article is a B-class article, and is used in the "environment" wikiproject.

Overall, the article is strong in content and supporting images, but could use improvement on some of the sourcing and contribution to wiki equity gaps. A re-organization would be useful for the flow of the page. The conversations in the talk page are very productive. The article is almost to the 'well-developed' stage in my eyes, and with my suggested improvements, it would be well on its way.