- AGree. TonyT 12:40, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
Disagree. Lead section is too short. Individual sections need to be better developed. Geoff PlourdeComplain! 21:44, 3 July 2008 (EDT) Agree due to massive rewrite Geoff PlourdeComplain! 21:39, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
- Disagree. It's coverage of the topic is too limited, briefly describing different architectural styles, but nothing more. Philip J. Rayment 10:16, 8 September 2008 (EDT)
- Agree. It has been improved. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 20:33, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
- Still disagree, but... It still covers almost nothing except architectural styles. The description of architecture itself is limited to the first two sentences plus a further sentence quoting a dictionary definition. There's nothing about the goals of architecture, the methods that architects use, the profession of architecture, etc. If this article was moved to Architectural styles, then perhaps it would be good enough to qualify. But for its current title, its coverage is still far too limited. Philip J. Rayment 10:49, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
- Done. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 11:02, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
- Agree. --DeanStalk 14:01, 19 October 2008 (EDT)
- Disagree, per what Philip J. Rayment said. Anyone have anything about the actual origin of the term, or even the history of architecture? JY23 10:16, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
|