User:TheGreek2/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Architectural theory

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
Being Greek, I've grown up appreciating architecture. So learning the basis of architectural theory seemed very interesting to me. After briefly skimming it, the article seemed like something I would enjoy evaluating.

Evaluate the article
After reading the article, I can say that the article was well written, and followed Wikipedia's policies. The article starts by simply defining architectural theory, a good opening. It did not directly state what sections were going to be in the article, but subtilty said what would be present. The content is well written, and is as up to date as architectural theory could be. The article only contains relevant data, and is something that I would consider understudied, or something that not too many people know about or understand. The article seems unbiased, and keeps a neutral tone. Contemporary architecture is what contains the most content in the article, however since contemporary is the trend right now, relevance of the topic is large at the moment. Even though it is the largest however, there is no bias towards contemporary being "the best" or favorited. The article carries a neutral tone, and never shows bias or a mood-swing of sorts that shifts the tone. This article pulled references from a variety of sources. It contains many citations to books, with links to them. And also references many other Wikipedia articles, with links to them as well. All of the sources are pretty diverse, and come from a large assortment of authors. One glaring thing that the talk page states is that the article is a mess... which does contradict my opinion of it. While it is only one person, and his reasonings are more opinionated, they are outdated. The response uses the date 2009, and edits have been made since then to fix these issues. The article is part of the Wikiproject Architecture, and is rated as "Top-Importance." Wikipedia, and the way we discussed articles in class, seem very similar in comparison. The article includes four pictures, and each picture serves a purpose for enhancing the article. Overall, the article is well written, and doesn't appear to have any grammatical errors or mistakes to my eye. The article as a whole appeared very well written, and seems well developed. Not sure how the article could be improved, besides maybe adding more pictures, or another source or two to just enhance small points in the article. The only other thing I could see that could improve is adding more details to the topics besides the 20th century, and contemporary sections. Those two sections have significantly more detail and information compared to the rest. So adding a little more information to the other topics could overall improve the article. Besides those, the article is well written, and well developed.