User:ChaseSub98/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Complaint tablet to Ea-nasir

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
Honestly, I just chose this at random when scrolling through the Internet memes Category of the Internet Culture WikiProject.

This tablet is the earliest known record of a complaint made against a person for the quality of their work.

It's a short article about a short tablet. There's not much more that can really be said about it, besides an explanation for why it's filed under Internet memes (Users on the social media site Tumblr find it humorous to keep complaining about Ea-nasir multiple millennia after his death and regularly make memes about him and his inadequate copper).

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

Lead Section
The article does include a concise introductory sentence to the topic. It describes exactly what the tablet is, when it was written, who wrote it, who it was sent to, where it was sent to, what language it was written in, why it is important, and where it is today.

However, given how little information there is, most of the article is contained within the lead section. It doesn't provide any kind of detail or information about the other sections. For this it probably is overly detailed as most of the information could probably be incorporated into the Description section.

Content
The article's content is completely on topic.

It's difficult to say for sure if it is up to date. It was last updated about a week ago, but most of the works cited are from several years ago at the most recent and over 50 years ago at the oldest; the footnotes do show somewhat more recent articles from the last couple years. This tablet is also nearly 4000 years old, and unless there's been a great deal of new discoveries made, then the age of these sources should not be a concern.

I don't see anything mentioning Wikipedia's equity gaps, so I will assume that it doesn't.

Tone and Balance
The article is completely neutral and only describes the contents of the tablet, rather than make any accusations of its own against Ea-nasir

Sources and References
Most of the works cited were from 2015, with one from 1967, though the one from 1967 is just a compilation of tablets written during the period.

Of the links, only one doesn't work: the fourth footnote from The Bible and Interpretation.

While there are scholarly sources mentioned in the External Links, they don't appear to have been the basis for much of the article's content. Most of the sources are from either popular news sites or sites of dubious scholarly quality.

Organization and writing quality
There don't seem to be any grammatical or spelling errors. It's well organized enough, but as mentioned a couple times already, there isn't much in this article, so specific organization isn't entirely necessary.

Images and Media
There's an image of the tablet itself, as well as an overview of the house where the tablet was found.

Talk page discussion
The WikiProjects this is a part of are:


 * Ancient Near East
 * History
 * Iraq
 * Business

As mentioned above, it can also be found through the Internet Culture WikiProject, though that isn't listed in the Talk page.

The talk page is fairly sparse. There are two discussions related to copyright, one for the copyright on the translation of the tablet and another on one of the sources. An anonymous person was asking about the consistency of the capitalization of Ea-nasir's name. One person was asking about the length of a quote that has since been removed entirely.

The way Wikipedia discusses this topic would be entirely different as I would be very surprised if we found a way to incorporate this ancient complaint tablet into any discussion about the American Civil War.