User:Otis9281/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Form follows function

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I am an architecture major, and have briefly learned about the phrase "form follows function" in both my design and graphic design classes, but have not learned about the history of the principle. I think it will be interesting to learn more about it through evaluation and to use what I learn in my designs for upcoming projects.

Lead section
The lead section of the article, Form follows function provides a singular sentence which defines what "form follows function" is and when it was 'created'.

Content
The article's content is relevant to the topic. As an article about a historic concept, it is primarily up to date. However, there is a notice that the section under Application in different fields, Architecture, requires additional citations that was posted in June 2011.

Tone and balance
This article is neutral and does not make any claims for or against 'form follows function' in architecture. It simply presents the history of the principle, as well as the views of those for and against it.

Sources and References
Other than the notice for more citations (mentioned in the Content section above), all the sources are reliable, thorough, and relevant. The few links I tested do work.

Organization and writing quality
The article is very well written and organized. It is very easy to find what you are looking for, whether it be the definition of the principle, it's history, or it's usage in various forms of design. I could find no grammatical errors.

Images and media
This article provides two images of buildings designed with the principle in mind by the 'father' of the phrase, Louis Sullivan. One of the images is better captioned than then other. While they both provide the building name and architect, the first of the two images provides the building location and build year, as well as a description as to why it is relevant to the article. Both images follow Wikipedia's copyright regulations.

Talk page discussion
Lower down in the talk page, many people gave critiques and guidance on how to improve the page. However, it seems that either these improvements were made, or the sections were outright deleted. There were a few others who were not using the talk page properly. Notably, someone posted a full review about 'capitalism and aerodynamics', which is completely unrelated.

Overall impressions
Overall, this article is very strong and well-developed. It provides all the basic information on the subject, and provides links to allow people to do more in depth research should they desire it. This article could delve a bit deeper into how the principle is used in different areas of design, however, if approached poorly, could bog down the article.