User:RubyC.03/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Conceptual architecture

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose to evaluate it because it is related to architecture. However, since it is a stub, there is much that could be improved.

Lead Section
The lead does include an introductory sentence that is concise and explains well what is Conceptual Architecture. The rest of the lead is also very concise. However, it does not present a breakdown of the structure of the rest of the article (as it does not have many other sections).

Content
The content that is included is very relevant, however in total there is not much content. The content is not the most up to date (the most recent examples are from 2004), but given the nature of the topic, this does not hurt it too much.

Tone and Balance
The article is neutral and presents various positions, both of conceptual architects as well as modernists who practiced similar ideas. The article does not try to persuade the reader of one of these positions. There could be more view points added.

Sources and References
There are only 3 sources in the bibliography, so it would be good to have more. However, they are all notable sources such as books and university journal publications. Problematically, most facts are not supported by a citation. The one that is supported is a quote at the end of the article. Also, the sources are not current: they are from 1992 and 2004. By researching the university database, there are definitely many more current sources relating to conceptual architecture that could help improve and expand this article. Some examples are article relating fake news and conceptual architecture in the last few years. A good element about the links is that they all work.

Organization and writing quality
Overall, the article is grammatically and linguistically well written and free of spelling mistakes. There is a use of quotation marks that might need to be formatted differently, perhaps with double quotation marks (I would have to check the linguistic rules). There is also one sentence that starts with "but," so it does not read as a complete sentence. What little there is in the article is well organize, but there is not much to it.

Images and quality
There are no images in the article. However, it mentions several examples of architects who practiced conceptual architecture so it would be useful to include examples of their work do demonstrate what it is.

Talk page discussion
There is not discussion on the talk page. It does indicate that the article is within WikiProjectArchitecture, so one should visit the project page for discussion. However, upon visiting that page, there is no discussion relating to the conceptual architecture page. This article is rated as Stub-Class and has not received a rating.

Overall Impression
Overall, what is included in the article is good, though citations need to be added to that information. The grammar and neutrality of the writing is also well done. The biggest improvements that need to be made are simply expanding it so that there is more information and more current information on the topic. This information does exist. Since it is a visual subject, adding pictures would be very useful. The article links to conceptual art, so following that articles structure and organization could be helpful when expanding this one.