User:SheffAE23/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Architecture of Costa Rica

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 this article due to the broad title and latest comments on the talk page. The talk page states that 3 of the buildings on the article are from the same architecture studio and the article felt promotional. This matters due to a need for neutrality in Wikipedia and some buildings are being picked over the other for a promotional motive. My preliminary impression of this article was that it was edited to have an addition of the three buildings that the specific studio produced to the article. Overall, the article was informative except for the section on modern architecture.

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.)

This article has a clear leading sentence. It states how the article talks about older architecture to new architecture. The lead talks about the main topics in the article extensively. The lead does not include information that is not present in the article. The lead is concise with an organized paragraph.

The articles content is relative to the topic, except for the section on modern architecture sites. This section contains promotional information for a specific studio. Most of the citations are last visited in 2017. This article is not completely up to date due to not being revisited in 6 years. There is content that does not belong, which is specific houses in Costa Rica from the same studio. This does not have the same historical context of diverse houses in Costa Rica. This article does not talk about under representation of individuals, but talks about a little history of individuals in historical Costa Rica.

Most of the article is neutral except for the modern architecture being promotional. There is a claim that seems heavily biased, which is the promotional aspect of modern architecture. This also plays into viewpoints that are overrepresented. The article does not persuade the reader except for the persuasion to use a specific studio.

There are many sources in this article, but some of them are not reliable. For example, number 18. Some of these articles are reliable and provide facts in the article. Many of these sources are from 2017 and there are none above 2019 that have been retrieved. Many of the links work, but they are not all reliable.

The article is very easy to read and is broken down in sections or well-organized and I do not see any grammatical or spelling errors.

The article has pictures that are well-captioned to tell the reader what they are depicting. They are laid out in a visually appealing way and most meet the Wikipedia regulations except for the map of Costa Rica.

This is rated as a C-class article and has three WikiProjects. These are Articles for Creation, Architecture, and Costa Rica. The overall status of this article is that it is very informative for the most part except for the section on modern architecture. There could be more info regarding architecture in history. The article's strength is the organization and number of citations. The improvements that need to be made are more info on the architecture structure and also a change in the paragraphs on modern architecture to make it more neutral. The article is somewhat underdeveloped due to a lack of information on specific structural architecture and a promotional view on half of the article.