User:Isabel Rol/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Aztec Mythology

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because the main focus of our class is the Mythology of the Oppressed. Aztec mythology, I specifically chose them because they are the closest to what I could find to Mayans (which is one of my favorite topics) among the C-Class articles. When we think about mythology what usually comes to mind is Greek mythology. I believe it is important to remember that South American cultures also had their own mythology. Learning about Aztec mythology matters because you learn about a culture's cosmovision, and in consequence about their history, traditions, and ethics. My initial impression of the article is that it is short and that most of its content is on lists of the different deities.

Evaluate the article
My overall impression of the article is that the writing is good and the content is correct. It is just missing more information, which may be because they mostly used old sources.
 * The lead section does contain concise information that summarizes what the article is going to be about. The downside is that it contains too much information. Most of the information is context, so it could have been its own section. This way the lead section will not feel too overwhelming.
 * All the content in the article is relevant, but there is information missing. Currently, the article only has a section about the Creation myth and a list of the deities. Mythology is much more than just creation and deities. The article would be more complete if it had information about other myths and more information about the most relevant deities.
 * A neutral tone is used throughout the article. It is noticeable that the purpose of the author is to inform about Aztec mythology. It even addresses that there are different variations of the creation myth.
 * The author used books as sources. There is a diverse spectrum of authors, as some of them are Americans and other Mexicans. The downside is that some of the sources are old, one dating as old as 1881, and only four sources are from 2000-2010.
 * Its writing is concise and clear. There could have been more sections. As I mentioned in the first point, the lead section could have been shorter by adding a new section that talked about the background.
 * The images in the article are all relevant to the topic, as well as their caption. Their use could have been improved by their placing since they are not placed in a visually appealing way. I would separate them more so the reader could appreciate each one of them and not confuse them (since they look similar).
 * The talk page has many conversations about improving the article and pointing out mistakes. There is one conversation that warns about vandalism and another one that is about citation.