User talk:Gp1791/Evaluate an Article

Excellent evaluation of this article. The age and authorship of the sources aren't so problematic in my mind. There hasn't been much written on the subject in the years after 2012, although I did find a reference I would definitely want to examine: Robson, E. and Stevens, K.R. 2019. Scholarly tablet collections in first-millennium Assyria and Babylonia. In Barjamovic, G. and Ryholt, K. (eds). The Earliest Libraries: Library Tradition in the Ancient Near East. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 317–64. There is a masters thesis from UNC-Chapel Hill from a MLIS student dating to 2019 on this exact topic, and that should be examined. I am not sure that it is true that just because a publication is associated with the British Museum it has to be in some way less trustworthy or biased. While it is important to understand and be aware of who is writing and supporting the publications, since they hold many of these texts (and likely have been responsible for writing the grant that allowed the texts to be brought into the 21st century) it is not surprising that the authors and publications would have an institutional affiliation. Additionally, the presses that are publishing research regarding this library's texts are academic presses, in large part. This means that they have editorial staff who specialize in particular subjects areas, and that the work has been peer-reviewed to determine its trustworthiness. This being said, however, I was surprised to see a single reference to one very old source from the many publications associated with the Oriental Institute at the University of Chicago.--JBeaudoin (talk) 02:05, 11 October 2021 (UTC)