User:Uilleam1/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Acamapichtli

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because, it was o the list of available articles to edit. As well as I have an interest in some of the first nation groups of south America; and have done projects on those groups before. Also as the first king of the Aztecs this ruler had an important role In the shaping of the Aztecs.

Evaluate the article

 * Lead Section:
 * The introductory sentence is confusing and could use a re-write.
 * No description of articles major sections.
 * lead includes some information not in article. (Ie. what name means).
 * Lead is confusing and starts right away with implicit details.
 * Content:
 * Articles content very relevant to topic.
 * Content is as up to date as can be seen without spending a lot of time doing separate study/research.
 * There is little to none missing or irrelevant content; some confusing content is the year of reign.
 * topic doesn't cover any controversies over the miss/or under representation of a minority.
 * Tone and Balance:
 * This article remains neutral throughout its writing.
 * There are no biased claims that jump-out at the reader of this article.
 * There are little to no points of view expressed within the text.
 * No fringe view points.
 * Doesn't have persuasive writing elements.
 * Sources and References:
 * Not all facts are backed up, at all or by reliable sources.
 * Not all sources thorough.
 * Some sources are dated (1989's/ some from 1800's); none are more recent.
 * There are few sources; no diverse spectrum. However, no author cited twice. No marginalized authors.
 * newer, more up-to-date sources may be available; however they are not likely to cover this specific king.
 * Sources all work/exist. (Ones tested/available).
 * Organization and Quality:
 * Article is semi-coherent, and becomes more well written in some spots; and less In others.
 * No major grammar or spelling errors I could find.
 * Article is broken down, into good categories, but not all categories reflect a major need/importance of being. (Ie. Personal life section is literally one sentence.)
 * Images and Media:
 * article only contains one image of the king himself that was a poor unclear drawing in and of itself.
 * Image is accurately captioned.
 * I cannot find copyright as image is an original glyph.
 * Talk Page Discussion:
 * Only talk pertains to confusion of a major piece of importance, as aforementioned, the dates of reign are misleading; and only two sentences exist questioning the confusing dates.
 * It is a part of the following projects:
 * Royal and Nobility Project.
 * Mesoamerica: Aztec Project.
 * Mexico Project.
 * Overall impressions:
 * My overall impression is that with even with the available (mostly completely uncited and therefore unuseable) information, a better Wikipedia page could be written with some time and dedication.
 * In contrast to my previous statement, a brilliant Wikipedia page could be constructed with new sources and actual in text citation. Some text written (if sources can be found and in text citation added) could possibly stay as some of it has some merit and written stability. upon reflection however, most (modern) sources focus on the Aztecs alone, and do not even devote even a chapter alone to this king; therefor it would technically be going against Wikipedia guidelines for proper/accurate sources.