User:Gp1791/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Library of Ashurbanipal

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose to evaluate this article because the topic intersects two of my current historical interests - the Bronze/Iron Age ancient near East, and the history of libraries. The Library of Ashurbanipal was an extensive ancient library of clay tablets discovered in an archaeological site in Ninevah, the capital city of the former Assyrian Empire. My initial impression of the article is that it is informative, but would benefit from more organization and clarity.

Lead section
Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?


 * Yes, although it is a string of many clauses and might flow better split into two sentences.

Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?


 * It does not. The article would benefit from better organization and more subheadings in general.

Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)


 * It brings up a point - that the library is significant to historians for providing information on the people of the ancient near East - which is not clearly addressed in the rest of the article. I would think the impact the discovery of the library had on modern histories and scholarship is important enough in demonstrating the significance of the topic (and hence the purpose of the article) that it deserves to have its own section.

Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?


 * It might benefit from being a bit more fleshed out, especially pertaining to the significance of the library.

Content
Is the article's content relevant to the topic?


 * Yes.

Is the content up-to-date?


 * The article was last updated in September 2021, which added a new source dating from 2021. Besides this, the rest of the sources that the content is pulled from dates to 2012 at the latest.

Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?


 * Content missing regarding the cultural and scholarly significance of the library to the fields of Assyriology, history, archaeology, etc.

Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?


 * No. There is a lengthy discussion (it has its own section) on the British Museum's Ashurbanipal Library Project (the British Museum has custody of the tablets). Since this is included, perhaps the article would benefit from additional information regarding the relatively recent push for museums (specifically the British Museum) to decolonize their collections and return artifacts to the cultures from which they were taken.

Tone and Balance
Is the article neutral?

Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?


 * I would say that the article is not entirely neutral. There is a heavy influence from the British Museum on this article's content, including the museum's Ashurbanipal Library Project and any publications it has made regarding that project. The British Museum has a history of being criticized (which has been revived recently) on their custody of artifacts which had been taken by colonizers from their cultures of origin. This article's preference towards sources traced back to the British Museum's projects and publications regarding the library show a bias towards the museum's point of view regarding this custodianship.

Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?


 * I'm not knowledgeable enough about the topic to accurately say whether fringe viewpoints are included or not, but when reading the article nothing sticks out as being not quite right.

Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?


 * It does a good job of sticking to facts rather than using persuading language.

Sources and References
Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?


 * Could use some additional citations - the "Discovery" section does not have a single citation in it. Each paragraph in the rest of the article generally includes 1-3 sources.

Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?


 * There is a good mix of published books and journal articles. Some sources are Assyria/ancient near East focused, while others are focused on historic libraries.

Are the sources current?


 * Besides an article from 2021, the sources all date to 2012 at the latest. So, not entirely current.

Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?


 * A good portion of the sources stem from the British Museum's projects and publications. There is a source in French.

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.)


 * I would assume that there has been scholarship written on this topic between 2012 and 2021 that should be consulted and included as sources for the article.

Check a few links. Do they work?


 * Yes,

Organization and writing quality
Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?


 * Could benefit from more concise and clear writing.

Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?


 * Not that I found.

Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?


 * The "Discovery" section could be fleshed out and the "Content" section should be broken into subsections to better focus the points of the narrative and provide the reader with more clarity. Possible subsections could cover the types of content in the library, background on Ashurbanipal and how and why he created the library, how it has been preserved, how it fits into the history of libraries, etc. The article would also be much stronger with a clear section on the significance of the library both to the ancient world and to modern scholars.

Images and Media
Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?


 * Yes, images of some of the more famous tablets found in the library, plus an image of the British Museum's exhibit of the library.

Are images well-captioned?


 * Yes.

Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?


 * Yes, every image includes information for its type of CC license.

Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?


 * Yes.

Talk page discussion
What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?


 * The only post on the Talk page was by the InternetArchiveBot about changing external links. No other discussion by editors of the article.

How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?


 * Part of many WikiProjects: WikiProject Assyria, WikiProject Libraries, British Museum project, WikiProject Archaeology, and WikiProject Ancient Near East. Rated Start-Class in all projects.

How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?


 * N/A

Overall impressions
What is the article's overall status?


 * This article seems to be pretty static at this point in its life. Most of the newer edits are minor.

What are the article's strengths?


 * It gives a good overview of the topic and includes relevant statistics.

How can the article be improved?


 * It would improve in quality with more concise writing, inclusion of subheadings, some more fleshed out sections, and the addition of new sections. It would also benefit from more citations and the inclusion of sources from the gap it has from 2012-2021.

How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?


 * The article is slightly underdeveloped and would benefit from more care.