Article Analysis Example: Comparison of Yankee and Citi Field Stadiums

1. What are the points of comparison the author uses in this article?

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

The author sets out to delineate the differences between conventional American stadiums designs and contemporary stadiums Yankee and Citi Field. To begin with, it is clearly indicated that the stadiums were set up by the same designer. Having replaced the previously old ones, they are both compared to be above average and are an excellent place to spend time watching a game.

The stadiums are architecturally compared. For instance, Yankees stadium previously had wooden seats that were not ergonomic. The new stadium is fitted with better limestone, granite, and cast stone making it imposing than ever. In addition, they are compared with respect to the history and culture prevalent at the club. For example, the manually operated scoreboard is built into the new stadium to make a historical impact, whereas the Mets have incorporated wide concourses opening up to the field.

2. Where do you think this article is lacking balance?

I believe that the article fails to strike a clear balance between Yankee and Citi Field. In particular, it focuses on specifying the difference between the old stadium and the new one failing to indicate how the two stadiums compare. Moreover, the article is more focused on the strengths of the Yankee stadium and does not offer the same kind of zeal in explaining the Citi Field part. In this regard, it is biased and unbalanced in comparing these two stadiums. In line with this point, no compelling evidence has been given to ascertain why Citi Field stadium is defined as scrappy.

3. What is the purpose of this article?

This article describes the historical view of American stadiums and goes ahead to detail how two stadiums have been built to meet contemporary needs. To this end, the article is purposed to review orthodox architecture and explain how Yankee and Citi Field meet or fail to meet these standards. The article review shows the Yankee stadium is not very perfect but is quite commendable. On the other hand, Citi Field stadium is considered poorly planned. In summary, the article strips Yankee and Citi Field stadiums to their architectural scheme. Additionally, it stipulates that despite old architectural designs being redundant, they still are relevant in the present.

4. What do you think the comparison was missing?

The comparison is deficient in pointing out a baseline architectural design to be used as a benchmark in comparing Yankee and Citi Field stadiums. The comparison is ineffective in analyzing the present structural needs of the society and only outlines what was done in the two stadiums. It further fails in explaining the throttleholds of the stadiums. For instance, how an open stadium is architecturally advantageous today in comparison to traditional designs. Additionally, I think the comparison fails to compare Yankee and Citi Fields cons and pros. In this regard, it fails to indicate the gap between top-notch designs and prevalent taste.

5. The author bases much of the differences in these stadiums on their locations, but what else do you think could be the cause for their designs being different?

The stadium designs can also be differentiated by the types of material used to realize the new model. For instance, Yankees Stadium is built with a mix of limestone, granite and cast stone. Secondly, the stadiums could be different because of the tastes held by the sponsors of the project. In particular, the committee that commissions the project also has to approve a design before it is implemented. Lastly and most importantly, the models are different because they are products of a generation which express art from a different point of view. Inherently, all architectural designs bear some differences, and these, in particular, are different because they hail from an orthodox perspective.