User:Bison.b.bison/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Ebla tablets

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I have reviewed it many times on my own and used it to help me understand lecture materials from Dr. Sugerman's Anth 336 in Fall 2020. Because it is a relatively short article despite the many analyses and transcriptions of the tablets. I wanted to know why it has not been expanded.

Lead section

 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No.
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
 * It does. The lead gives the date of discovery, timeline of the tablets, and current location, all of which are not repeated or listed in the main body of the article.
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is concise, but also includes specific details not found elsewhere in the article.

Content

 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the content all relates to the Ebla tablets.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * The content has not seen an update other than grammar/aesthetic changes in at least 6 months.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * It seems that the article is missing greater descriptions of the content of the tablets, as well as the contemporary history of their creation. I would also like to see a section about current (if there are any) research and/or studies being done with the tablets.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No, the study of near-east archaeology is not one I would consider historically underrepresented. Biblical archaeologists and other historical archaeologists keep this area of study relevant.

Tone and Balance

 * Is the article from a neutral point of view?
 * For the most part, yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Yes, in the Biblical Archaeology section, it reads more like a piece in an essay than in a reference article.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * It seems that the viewpoint is heavily focused on the western-view of the Ebla tablets as an archaeological find and not a piece of Near East history.
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
 * Sort of. There needs to be more solid language in the last section to codify who thinks what and why.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * I do not believe so, no.

Sources and References

 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, as far as I can tell.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * No, the sources and bibliography do not reflect any current study.
 * Are the sources current?
 * No, the newest source is from 2007.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * No. They are all male, and most are of European origin.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * There are some sources available that are not listed in this article, but I am not comfortable calling them "better" without reading them through.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes they do.

Organization and writing quality

 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * None that I could notice.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, but there needs to be more information.

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * There are two images, one of a tablet and one of the excavation site. They provide some understanding, but I think there needs to be a map of where Ebla is, both now and in the past.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * The captions give the barest context of the images. For the tablet, it needs to list what tablet is it, what it describes, and where in the stack it was found.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * No, they appear to be personal images.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Not really, but they do not take away from the article at all.

Talk page discussion

 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * There was an argument between two editors back in 2015 about the biblical controversy and how to best summarize (or not!) the issue in a way that kept the focus on the Ebla Tablets.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * WikiProject Syria: Start Class, High Importance
 * WikiProject Ancient Near East: C Class, High Importance
 * WikiProject Archaeology: C Class, High Importance
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * We never talked about it in this class, but in my Anth 336 course the Ebla tablets were talked about in conjunction with widespread trade and the indications of networks between areas.

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status?
 * Published
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The article does a good job of introducing the topic to those who many not know much about it in a way that isn't information dumping.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * Add more information about the tablets use, not just their archaeological context. Photos need to come from real and reputable sources.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I would say this article is underdeveloped. It has holes, but overall it has good bones.