User:Paperbagsplease/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Louis Sullivan

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I chose the article about Architect Louis Sullivan because although he is a prolific architect I feel as if his work is not as recognized as influential as other American architects that followed him in the late 19th and 20th century.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)


 * The lead section of the article is very well written, concisely explaining Sullivan's major achievements, who he's influenced, and where he's worked.
 * The only thing that felt tonally incorrect was the inclusion of his misattribution of the quote "form over function" to Roman architect Vitruvius. I think this bit of information is not necessarily helpful to include right at the lead but would be nice to have possibly in the legacy and career sections
 * Early life and career and theatre design would be a bit more influential if there was a greater emphasis on the the theatre's that he worked at and how that lead to him being most well known for his skyscrapers
 * In the area about Sullivan and the Steel High rise there is a lot of information pertaining to other high-rises without citations and that in my opinion goes a little to far into background exposition concerning the history of steel high-rises before eventually talking about Chicago being an suitable laboratory for experimental architecture post fire.
 * I don't think also that the section about Sullivan appearing in Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead needs to be its own section and would perhaps be better placed within the section concerning Sullivan's later career and decline where other information pertaining to his legacy could be considered.
 * Some people in the talk section brought up the appearance of bias in the later half of the section dedicated to Sullivan's decline and the fact there is seemingly no source.