Talk:History of architecture

message: There is A LOT of hot air in the writing. Take the first paragraph. I have added my comments.Brosi 14:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  reader beware! 

message: :Image:Palais Garnier -Outside.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 16:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Palais Garnier -Outside.JPG

message: I removed "planned urban townships existed 500000 years ago" from the Indian architecture section. This claim is unsourced and seems unlikely because modern humans had not fully evolved 500,000 years ago (see Human). (129.174.178.65 (talk) 23:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: 500000 years ago

message: I've been working for a while on the article Modern architecture, and realized that some of the material here (under that section), e.g. tube structures, Googie, Futurism, etc. might fit better under that page (much of which is better covered here than there), the destination article of which which is essentially a page similar to this one, yet focused on the particular styles and movements specifically within Modern architecture (in its broader sense). This can be seen by how large the "Modern Architecture" navbox is. However, as a result of that specificity, I see this page as being more general to the broader over-arching movements rather than more obscure variants, and thus I propose to thin down this section here to keep it the broad scheme of world architectural history (pointing to more specific pages, akin to the History of Architecture Navbox), and so I was wondering if anyone would object to that?Morgan Riley (talk) 17:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Action taken, as part of a major overhaul Morgan Riley (talk) 20:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to relevant article? 

message: Hi, I just wanted to let everyone know that I fixed a major error concerning the metallurgical capabilities of Precolumbian Cultures from basically denying that anyone except for the Great Lakes Peoples had copper (and only a minor industry at that, basically), to citing and pointing out that parts of Mesoamerica, the Isthmo-Columbian area and the Precolumbian Andes had at least a chalcolithic level of metallurgical technology or - in the case of Late Postclassic Mesoamerica and the Andes since at least the Early Intermediate Period (with the Moche), had a Bronze Age level of metallurgical technology.
Also, I'd like to point out the obvious: That there's quite a big difference between a neolithic culture in Neolithic Europe or Neolithic New Guinea, in both cases quite simple societies, and the Classic Maya (for example), who had state-level societies with writing and books, advanced maths using the zero, amazing astronomy, paved roads, pressurized aqueducts, water filters, flush toilets and so on and so forth, so - while the Maya were indeed technically a Neolithic Culture, it's kind of not good historical work to group them with illiterate chiefdoms or tribes, at least in my humble opinion. Jamutaq (talk) 19:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in Non-Eurasian Metallurgy Fixed 

message: I filled in a few sections to help fill up the article a bit, hope it helps!
Zamorakphat (talk) 19:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Filled in a few sections 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on History of architecture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928124326/http://www.iran-daily.com/1385/2631/pdf/i12.pdf to http://www.iran-daily.com/1385/2631/pdf/i12.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on History of architecture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20071014131553/http://academic.evergreen.edu/curricular/NAS/ to http://academic.evergreen.edu/curricular/NAS/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110310024053/http://www.essentialhumanities.net/s_art_arch_time.php to http://www.essentialhumanities.net/s_art_arch_time.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:57, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello!  There's a lot of awkward language throughout the page that's super redundant.  I'll have to dig through my architectural history textbooks to confirm some of the phrasing and facts, but I'll be looking into updating this page with the eye of an architectural history student.  If there are any facts that you know are incorrect but need sources, I have access to a library just for architecture texts so feel free to reach out to me.  Please correct me if anything is incorrect as my knowledge is still being developed. Firegirl306 (talk) 04:07, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overall Overhaul 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 22:51, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: I find it very odd that the only Andean architecture brought up in this article is that of the Inca. It's completely skipping over almost 4,000 years of architecture. Very odd. I would hope that someone would be able to fix this. GreenMountainGaurd88 (talk) 22:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inca vs Andean Architecture 

message: I'm a bit concerned by these changes, which I suspect may be copyvio. Frankly, User:Neoclassicism Enthusiast's English, though functional, isn't this good. Usually he sticks to editing the pictures. Does anyone have the book?  @User: Diannaa. Johnbod (talk) 17:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't get access to the book. Spot checks reveal nothing.— Diannaa (talk) 19:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, thanks - if anyone does have the book.... Johnbod (talk) 20:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvio? 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Which article are you evaluating?
(History of construction#Academic discipline)
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.)
Back home, my father is a construction contractor, so it only made sense for me to evaluate this article. Looking a little bit into the history of construction was a way for me to better understand the history as well as tying It into how it has evolved with the advancement of our society. My first impression of the wikipedia page was pretty impressed with the overall layout of the page and with the information that is placed into position into the entire page.
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.)
Lead Section
As time has passed, the world has evolved and changed, and with this change so has the entire industry and making of construction in ways that leave the public in awe. The article shows the different time periods in which construction has been changed and adjusted due to the different time periods that have passed. Each time period throughout history has made its own unique impact to the construction industry using the best materials and technology of its unique time period. The most important factors throughout time have been the technology and materials used, and once technology started advancing, so did the materials basically contributing to each other to form infinite capabilities.
Content
The content is this article is relevant, giving us important specific times and dates that give us details about the different materials and tools used in each time period. They also include the way in which the overall advancement in that time influences the advancement of those tools and materials that later help encourage the change of construction. Some articles have much more information than others which can make it unbalanced. The article does seem to be a little out of date, the last update that was made to this article was about 5-6 years ago. I did not really see information that did not belong. Most of the information seems to be relevant to the topic, although there are some points that could be taken out. The article does mention the Stone Age, which could be considered underrepresented topic.
Tone and Balance
The article in some sections seems to mention one side more than the other, for example in two of the sub-articles, it tends to talk more towards the materials and tools rather than expanding on the overall architecture and structure of the building types in that era. There does not seem to be a claim or topic that seems to be appointed towards one particular position that the author decides to pick. I feel that in some of the sub-headings there tends to be a more overrepresentation of some of the topics rather than having all the topics all neutrally stand out. There does not seem to be a certain point where the author is trying to convince or persuade the reader towards one particular position.
Sources and References
The majority of sources in this article seem to be coming from a perspective that are in the primary source of the cited article, not like how wikipedia wants you to have it through the secondary source. The cited sources backup and are relevant to the information that is used in the article which helps backup the information used in that article, but some of the sources seem to be outdated with some passing the 5 year reference limit. Even though some of the cited sources have good relevant information, there are some websites that I was able to find that I feel can be used in order to better suit the article and back it up with its information, but for the most part I did not find a lot of peer reviewed links.
Organization and Writing Quality
The writing in this article was readable and was able to let the reader know the information needed in order to clearly process the information. I would not say that this article was professionally written but the article was clear enough to make a point, and let the reader learn interesting information towards the topic. The sections were spaced across the entire page well but some articles were much longer than others, some containing information that was not necessarily useful.
Images and Media
Across the entire page there are pictures that correspond with the section that it is placed next to, while the grammar in those captions can be enhanced to help detail what is going on in the exact photo. Most of the photos used in the article are publicly placed photos that do not need a citation, while the photos that are not publicly owned have their corresponding photo. For the most part, the majority of the photos are placed on the right side of the page, which is not really a big deal, but they can be placed better.
Talk page discussion
In the talk page link of the article a lot of the discussions are focused on the overall cleanup of the article. Some referencing how the article should clean up the grammar in order to make a clear and concise reading for the reader. One other comment was how the article is not balanced well enough and some sections are overrepresented when compared to the rest of the reading. I did not see that the article was connected to any Wiki projects, and wikipedia states the details that need to be altered in the overall entire reading.
Overall impressions
The overall status of the page stands at a level 5 vital article in history or better described as a C-Class. Some of the articles strengths include the architecture section of the entire article, it has good information that helps the reader understand and learn. Some ways that the article can be improved are by clearing up some of the sentences and overall grammar of the article. A couple of other suggestions would be to balance the information across the entire page, evening out some of sections so that the reader can have a balanced set of information and one portion won't be overrepresented over others. The last suggestion that I would give would be to organize the sections in hierarchical order because of its historic events, you must organize them by date.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Estebantav34 (talk • contribs) 04:00, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Architecture Evaluation 

message: Article is timing out on mobile versions of Wikipedia. Ideally, a page should have no more than 100 images ..MOS:ACCIM.Moxy- 13:16, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I counted and I see around 250 images. The best way to fix this is by limiting the number of images per sub section. I counted 34 sub sections (some don't have sub sections so I counted the main). Since there are 34, that would allow for 3 images per sub section. Therefore, I welcome recommendations to reduce from sub sections. Since I manage South Asia mostly, I'll do my part to remove from there Arjunullas (talk) 12:58, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many images 

message: I noticed several sections being removed. It would be ideal to plan it out before that's done. I understand that the page is heavy. But an overhaul should be even and well planned. The priority for removal should always be given to the sections that are far heavier in text and images. Arjunullas (talk) 13:08, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Necessary planning before complete removal 

message: BRO WHERE ARE YOUR CITATIONS!! AusCyberman (talk) 13:55, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  citations 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:27, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion