User:NoRossi/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Louis Sullivan

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
After our class discussion / readings I was interested to learn more about Sullivan.

Evaluate the article
-The lead section seems to be relatively standard, yet comprehensive and functional.I can find no information that is undressed in the body of the article.

-As far as I can tell the sources seem to be well selected and seemingly accurate. Sources range in age but it seems they have been kept relatively up to date with some updates made form sources published in the last couple of years. I was able to find a dead link in the sources, reference 31.http://memory.loc.gov/pnp/habshaer/mo/mo0600/mo0668/data/mo0668.pdf

-The article is written in mostly appropriate and impartial tone. However in the later sections there is language that borders on biased, for example in the section on his late career: the "irresistible appeal of his incredible designs" and  "proof of the immediate and visceral power of the ornament that he used so selectively." seem to border on breaches of impartiality.

- The language is overall clear and concise.

-I am confused as to the emphasis on the connection to Ayn Rand, and while I do acknowledge the obvious connection the the influence of the novel it stands out to me as a little strange that it has its own substantial subsection in what is a relatively lean article (considering how well known and influential Sullivan was/is). It seems to also add a strange layer of political charge to the article, associating Sullivan and his legacy with a controversial and often referenced right wing, and quasi anti-democratic touchstone.

-The image selection is helpful and seem to meet the criteria for good supporting visuals. I believe that it would be helpful to establish more direct links between their placement and the concept of the article. For example the photo of the Sullivan's signature embellishments should be in the section that discusses them and the draftsmen that produced them rather than in the section on preservation.

To me the language in the final section and the prominence of the Rand section are the clear issues in this article. Aside from these I believe the article would benefit from simple aesthetic changes to establish better connection between the visuals and the article's content.