User:StellaWitch/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Proportion (architecture) https://w.wiki/7XMe

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I am studying History of Architecture and wanted to learn more about proportion as part of understanding development of building design.

Evaluate the article
The Lead Section starts out with a good definition, but is under developed. The Content section goes in-depth into one type of architecture, but is not balanced with information regarding other types of Architecture. The tone and balance of the information is constant with what I would expect. It's not a very controversial topic, so I wouldn't expect to see a bias in the writing. The sources and references are underdeveloped, There are two sources listed - both of them appear to be published texts from the early 2000. Possibly 2 more for a topic of this size - giving multiple options for information about the different styles and how proportion was used in different styles of architecture. The article has a basic outline, it has sections and provides its references and additional readings. It lacks development in the one section that is most developed and the other two sections are started, but contain just one sentence each. I don't see any grammatical errors, but what is there reads more like a textbook than a report one the information. The pictures selected are what drew me to the article, but nothing in the information presented actually aligned with the media presented. I took a look at the "talk" page to see what if anything had even said about the article. There are actually a few comments, on give some additional information regard proportion in design. Another just listed a lot proportion conversions against the Remen - something that is necessary to understand, but very few people will use it. The last comment has to do with the same things I have preserved. They suggested ways to make it better and the author reacted back to the suggestion. My overall impression of the article was that it has/had potential. It is under developed and it appears the author hasn't done anything with it since 2017. I think tackling different architectural types and then define the proportions or symmetry in those types would be a better way to develop the article. ~