User:TCMcG/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Frank Lloyd Wright

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
Wright is an important contributor to American design and architecture, as well as being a total weirdo with a "controversies" section (in this case, Midlife Problems), which is fun.

Evaluate the article

 * Lead Section: For someone with as long a legacy as Wright, it's a very streamlined intro. It provides a broad overview of his life and work, and provides cited accolades.
 * Content: The "The Women in His Life" subhead is a little weird, but tangentially relates to underrepresented populations. It's a shame that it's just in the "further reading" part, because his relationship with his subordinates - his women subordinates in particular - could use some exploration.
 * That being said, there's a real danger of making a FLW Wikipedia article immense and unwieldy, so sub-articles about his relation to the people he worked with might be warranted?
 * I promise not to add a separate "Frank Lloyd Wright and Capes" section, even though that's the part about him that I find most amusing. (There's a citation needed note in his personal style section which does it for me.)
 * Tone and Balance: As an incredibly famous person (with notable controversies), it's clearly erring on the side of neutrality. There's a profoundly broad spectrum of opinion on the guy and his art and work, and the article avoids taking aesthetic or critical positions. I didn't catch any fringe positions, nor does it seem to be trying to persuade.
 * Sources and References: There are 134 citations, ranging from Wright's autobiography (which under ordinary circumstances would be sort of specious) to Ada Louise Huxtable (a nearly-universally respected 20th architecture critic). Crimemuseum.org was a source that I found curious to cite, but it's not hard to get formal, recognized sources for someone this notable. I did notice that there were a number of Japanese-language sources that were translated, and cited as translations.
 * The Talk page refers to over 40 "citation needed" items, and I counted 28, which is still a lot, but better than 40.
 * Organization of Writing Quality: No notes. Perhaps a bit on the dry side, but it's Wikipedia, not Us Magazine. Again, I'm sure there's a temptation to sub-head and sub-section Wright's life and work into the thinnest possible slices, but the article avoids that temptation for the most part.
 * I think there's a disjointed quality to some of the sections; it's obviously been written by several different hands, and re-reading it, you can kind of see the seams. It's not distracting, per se, but it could be tidied up.
 * Images and Media: This is where I have Wikipedia Questions. I'm inclined to request more images, but I know that the images have to be in the public domain, or at least Creative Commons-accessable, so that limitation is a bit of a bummer. But for someone whose work is so visual, the impact is weirdly light. Again - perhaps I'm complaining about Wikipedia standards, rather than this particular article.
 * Talk Page Discussion: Surprisingly quiet! Again, I mentioned the citations needed conversation, and a couple editor edits, but the page is respectful and mostly keeps to some light discussion of semantics and speculation.
 * Overall Impression: It's hard as heck to make a Wikipedia article for someone that is as famous and influential as Wright. The guide rails set up by Wikipedia are obviously valuable, and it's hard to take umbrage with decisions that come out of those restrictions. I'm not certain what the process is for formatting images, still (this template puts thumbnails on the right, which diminishes the impact for me), and it is a bit light on his non-structural work. Again, there's a lot of considerations to avoid article bloat, and this seems to strike a reasonable balance.