User:Vic020699Fo/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architecture_of_Brazil

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I choose this article on Brazilian architecture due to the fact that I'm Brazilian and always interested in learning more about Latin America and expanding my knowledge about birth nation. Also, I enjoy studying and looking at architecture from time to time.

Evaluate the article
I feel has though the lead section does a good job in letting the reader know what they should expect to find in an article called Architecture of Brazil. I believe that the lead is concise but maybe a little over detailed. If I wanted a real quick look at Brazilian Architecture, I would have gotten what I wanted.

The content of the article seems to be relevant to the topic of Brazilian of Architecture, but it does seem lite on content. In the terms of if it's up to date it has modern sources that are mostly from 21st century with a few from the 60s. We don't have anything on architecture after the 1980s it appears. It doesn't say anything about current trends or looks posts the 80s. 40 years feels like something is missing from the article. Nothing in the terms of content shouldn't be there. It does follow equity gaps since it talks about indigenous people of Brazil when talking about the subject of architecture in how they built their homes.

I believe that the editors of the article left a neutral tone in the article I don't see any inherent bias. It doesn't appear in attempt to sway the reader into believing that one method of architecture is better than another.

There is some problem with the sources one of the sources was a book that I couldn't find, and it was in Portuguese and for someone who doesn't speak the language would be a problem. Which is understandable since it is covering a foreign country Another link was dead the domain appears to not exist anymore. Some the host didn't respond to the request. The sources do appear to cover a good amount of different writers and doesn't pull from one or two sources exclusive.

In terms of organization, I felt like the article was well written enough I didn't have any complains about the way that it was written.

There doesn't seem to be a lot of talk in this page it has a C rating for the article very few revisions since 2017. It is part of Wiki Project. There is very little discussion. And hard to compare to the classroom scenario.

The photos seemed to be well captioned making it clear in what it depicts. I feel like the photos does enhance what they are talking about. Architecture I feel very much benefits from pictures of examples. I feel like the copyright rules of Wikipedia. There appears to be proper credit to these images.

My overall thoughts I agree with Wikipedia assessment of this needing working improving what it has and looking to improve the sources that it uses. I would say that the article is underdeveloped for the most part for the lack of discussion of more modern architecture. A strength of the article I feel is the images that they used to describe what they are discussing. Definitely helps the reader better understand what they are reading.