User:Selena48/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: (link) Pattern (architecture)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I have chosen this article because the concept of patterns in architecture can easily be related to gothic and collegiate gothic. With collegiate much of the designs were inspired by Oxford and so many deisgn choices found in modern day collegiate buildings can be traced back to Oxford. In other words this particular components, such as bay windows, are archetypal to the the style and reusable which is what the article briefly talks about

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The introduction clearly describes what the article is going to be about. A briefly what it means by patterns in architecture and how it is applied giving the reader a clear understanding of the topic at hand. However it doesn't seem to provide much information about the major sections. While it does cover what pattern language is, it doesn't go into much detail about Alexander's idea of patterns. It mentions that the term pattern can be attributed to Alexander it doesn't mention anything about the idea's of patterns and could potential confuse the reader about what the major section is about. The lead also brings up the idea of pattern books and that it is different from pattern language but doesn't discuss it in the article or have a major section about it so it feels a bit out of place.However I would say that the lead is brief and quite concise otherwise, they don't focus on one specif thing more than the others and the introduction isn't overly detailed.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
The content of the article does seem to be relevant to the topic. Alexander's ideas of patterns briefly touches upon how patterns in architecture in general become archetypal and reused over time and briefly talks about the process such as how design choices in certain buildings at certain places at certain times are recorded over the years to see if a pattern develops. They also expand more on Pattern language, what it does and how it relates to architecture after giving a brief summary in the introduction. The content seems up to date. Not only talking about how it was used in the past but also the present and even talks about how these ideas have also been criticized over the years, showing the development of these ideas. Toward the end of Pattern languages the writer briefly mentions how pattern language has had an impact on people in the information technology industry but don't expand on it and so it feels a bit out of place with the rest of the article

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The article does appear to be neutral, as in Alexander's ideas of patterns they talk about Alexander's point of view and in Pattern languages they talk about how his ideas have been revived with mixed results and that even Alexander himself might agree with these statements and requires more, but doesn't appear to be openly favoring one view over the other and there isn't a hint of bias in the article. However I do believe that these viewpoints are under presented as well the article gives a brief summary of both points they don't really explain why. They don't go into much detail over why Alexander's ideas have been met with mixed results or why Alexander believes patterns aren't enough and it requires more information to fully understand these viewpoints. However they do provide both Alexander's thinking and the critiques of this thinking and so they are persuading the reader to think one way over the other.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The facts are backed up by secondary information. Not only do they proved the reader with a reference and further reading, but they mention Alexander's books in the article and provide links to their Wikipedia articles and a free sample of one of the books so the reader can learn more about the topic and as such reflect the available books on the topic and the links works. However they are not current, one of the books was published in 2003-2004 while the other was published in 1977 and the further reader provided is from 1983 and 2015 so the sources should probably be updated.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
the article is straightforward and easy to read so one does not need to be familiar with architecture to know what the writer is talking about. The article also does not contain any spelling errors and the main points are broken down into sections, (Alexander's ideas of patterns, and Pattern language) so the reader knows what the main talking points are.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
The article does not provide any images

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Talk page evaluation
Most of the discussions are about inconsistencies such how pattern should be defined and if it should be more specific or if the topic should be broadened, and how the article seems overly "wikified" as one use called it and uses to many wikilinks. The article has been rated start class and low importance. It is different from how we discussed it in class because the discussion seems to lean more toward nitpicks more akin to a blog rather than giving advice or editing the article to make it better quality

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Overall evaluation
The article's overall status is of okay quality. The article's strength lies with its topics. It has some interesting ideas such as pattern language and has some decent starting points and arguments, such as how people disagree with Alexander's ideas and even he himself can understand that there has to be more to it, and i think the best way to improve it would be to expand on those ideas more and so I would asses the article's completeness as a good starting point just underdeveloped

Optional activity

 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~


 * Link to feedback: