User:Lebrunsky99/sandbox

Articles
Peterloo Massacre

Arthur Machen

Henry Fuseli

Articles
Peterloo Massacre

Arthur Machen

Henry Fuseli

Research Process
Initially, I started my research process off by looking through some articles that were relevant to some of my personal interests. At first I was only going to use featured articles of Wikipedia, but then I decided to diversify the quality in my selection to see the differences between featured articles, good articles, and articles that still required some work. The one featured article I selected revolved around my interest in history, which was the Peterloo Massacre, while the Arthur Machen article is an article with a warning banner notifying readers that it still required further citations, and, finally, the Fuseli article, which would be considered a good article by Wikipedia standards. I also used Encylcopaedia Britannica Online to find articles to compare the quality and information against the Wikipedia articles. The reason for this was because this encyclopedia is easily accessible, is a popular and known encyclopedia, and has plenty of information and articles.

The first article I chose was the Peterloo Massacre. I discovered the Peterloo Massacre under the history section of Wikipedia's featured articles. The article was quite in-depth, covering a range of factors that were fundamental in bringing the event to its tragic ending. These factors included the poverty of the main population that led to their public protest, and the political system of the time that enabled such conditions. There were quite a lot of references in this article that helped provide a lot of background information and specific details. The next article was regarding Arthur Machen, a renowned supernatural author that is a personal favourite of mine. There were lots of information regarding his life, personal philosophy and careers in writing and acting, but many of the paragraphs had chunks of information without references; thus the reason for the warning banner previously mentioned. The last article was on Henry Fuseli, a famous painter who is also a personal favourite of mine. The article had plenty of details regarding his style and had plenty of images of his work, but it also mainly relied on a single primary resource, the 1911 Britannica Encyclopedia.

My articles were primarily historical biographies, and by looking at the two encyclopedias it was evident that Wikipedia was clearly the more in-depth and detailed encyclopedia. Encyclopaedia Britannica often only sketched over, and did brief overviews of topics and subjects that, on the other hand, had their own fleshed-out sections in Wikipedia articles, such as the decision for the conservative leaders to call on the army to disassemble the gathering at St. Peter's, England. This key moment in the Peterloo Massacre only had a few summarizing lines in Britannica yet it had an entire section on Wikipedia, with quotes and intimate details. For the artists, Machen and Fuseli, Britannica focused more on their popular works, their inspirations, and their careers while Wikipedia delved more into personal histories, contextual understandings of their work and generally provided more in-depth information.

Wikipedia Summary
The Arthur Machen article on Wikipedia is quite extensive and is broken down into sections. The first section is a biography of Machen, which starts off by detailing his early life. He was born Arthur Llewelyn Jones on March 3, 1863 in Caerleon, Monmouthshire, Wales. The scenic landscape of Monmouthshire is believed to have had a major influence on the young Machen, which would later be seen in his works. Machen came from a family who had a long history of being clergymen. Machen's interest in the occult was forged upon having read books about alchemy in his father's rectory library. Due to his family's poverty, Machen couldn't get into University, and he failed to pass the entry exams to a medical school in London. In 1881, he did publish a poem called “Eleusinia”, but he still lived in a relative state of poverty moving from one odd job to the next. In 1884, after publishing his second work The Anatomy of Tobacco, Machen found steady work as a cataloguer, magazine editor, and translator for some old French works. In 1887, Machen's father died, and Machen married Amelia Hogg, who would later introduce Machen to many writers; including the occultist A.E. Waite. Waite became one of Machen's closest friends and was a great influence on his mystical writing. In the 1890s. Machen began dedicating more time to writing and published many of his works in literary magazines. His first major success was “The Great God Pan”, which sold well despite being criticized for its blatant sexuality and horrific content. Machen continued to publish other works such as The Three Imposters, but following the Oscar Wilde scandal, Machen found it difficult to sell his work so much of his critically acclaimed works such as The Hill of Dreams and “The White People” were published later. In 1899, Machen's wife died, and her death greatly affected him. To overcome his grief, Machen decided on a career change and took up acting. His new profession took him around the country, and he ended up marrying Dorothie Purefoy Hudleston. Eventually, Machen began to find it difficult to make a living off his career as an actor and decided to settle down with a journalist job at Alfred Harmsworth's Evening News. Machen became popular once again with morale-boosting stories he wrote for the Great War such as “The Bowmen” and “The Angel of Mons”. Despite making a decent living, Machen didn't like working at the newspaper. He was dismissed in 1921. The 1920s saw many of Machen's works being republished. There was a resurgence in his popularity, and the books sold well. However, towards 1926, the republication craze had faded, and Machen was once more in financial troubles. Machen's financial troubles would end on his eightieth birthday by a literary appeal that provided him enough money to live in relative comfort until his death in 1947.

The rest of the article looks at Machen's philosophy, beliefs, and influence in the literary world. A huge component to Machen's philosophy was the mystic belief that secret worlds existed behind the veneer of normal reality. Machen also possessed a romantic viewpoint that was against materialism, commerce, and Puritanism. He also was suspicious of science and modernization. Machen was brought up Christian and held on to these beliefs even while humouring his interests in mysticism and the occult. Machen's literary legacy is far-reaching. The article states that his stories have been translated into many languages and have been reprinted numerous times. Many critics such as Wesley D. Sweetser and S.T. Joshi see Machen as a key component in the resurgence of the Gothic novel in the late Victorian era. Machen's work was highly influential in the development of the horror genre in the 1920s, helping to create a market for the magazine Weird Tales that published the likes of H.P. Lovecraft and Robert E. Howard. Machen was a huge influence on Lovecraft, who considered Machen to be one of the four “modern masters” in the supernatural horror genre. In contemporary times, Machen's work has been cited to have influenced such horror and fantasy writers as Peter Straub, Stephen King, T.E.D. Klein, and Ramsey Campbell. Machen's influence was not solely felt in the realm of horror though as many writers outside the genre, such as Paul Bowles and Javier Marias, have argued that Machen is a great writer. Machen also helped develop the field of psychogeography, based on his interest on the link between the human mind and natural environments. His work has inspired many mystics and occultists, including Aleister Crowley and Kenneth Grant. Machen was not only an inspiration to writers either as his work inspired the composer John Ireland, among many other musicians and composers, and his work inspired film directors, such as Guillermo del Toro and Richard Stanley. One of the last sections in the article focuses on the literary society created to honour Arthur Machen entitled The Friends of Arthur Machen. This society publishes two journals and is committed to supporting interest in Machen's work. The article closes with a list of Machen's works, a references list, and a further reading list.

Encyclopaedia Britannica
The Encyclopaedia Britannica article first notes how Arthur Machen is a pseudonym for Arthur Llewelyn Jones and describes him as a Welsh writer and essayist, who was a pioneer of 20th century Gothic science-fiction The article states that Machen's work was greatly influenced by his early years in the beautiful Welsh landscape as well as the many books on metaphysics and occultism he read. The article then mentions how he lived most his life in poverty going from one job to the next before becoming an actor in 1902, and eventually joining the staff of the London Evening News in 1912. The article makes specific note of Machen's writing during the Great War and how it had a great influence on the public. “The Angel of Mons” was, at the time, believed to have been based on a true story and gave hope to many soldiers on the battlefields. The article discusses Machen's interest in the spiritual power of the ancient British countryside and references many stories that use themes such as Machen's romantic views on the industrial era and his love for Roman and Welsh mysteries.

Comparison and Contrast
Upon examining both articles, it is clear that the Wikipedia article has more information than the Encyclopaedia Britannica article. The Encyclopaedia Britannica article consists of only three paragraphs whereas the Wikipedia article has an entire organized body of information with more subsections than paragraphs in the Encyclopaedia Britannica article. The Encyclopaedia Britannica article simply glosses over Machen's early youth and his early career struggles. The paragraphs read like a summary of points. For example, here is the description of Machen trying to make a living for himself: “He lived most his life in poverty as a clerk, teacher, and translator. In 1902 he became an actor with Benson's Shakespearean Repertory Company. And, in 1912, approaching his 50th birthday, he joined the staff of the London Evening News”. The excerpt was written like a report of quick facts about Machen's life whereas the Wikipedia article delved into each of these parts of Machen's life with detailed sections of their own. Each of these sections consisted of a minimum three paragraphs and each were full of in-depth information about that specific part of Machen's life. For example, the Wikipedia article details how Machen had a son born during his time at Evening News and discussed his published stories “The Bowmen” and “The Angel of Mons” that helped boost morale for soldiers during the Great War. These bits of information were not in the Encyclopaedia Britannica article. Another example is the section on his acting career that explains how Machen was influenced by his friend A.E. Waite to join the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn and how he married Dorothie Purefoy Hudleston during his time as an actor.

Looking more closely at the article, I really think the Wikipedia article does a great job at introducing Machen compared to the Encyclopaedia Britannica article. The Encyclopaedia Britannica article's introduction is simply “Arthur Machen, pseudonym of Arthur Llewellyn Jones (born March 3, 1863, Caerleon, Monmouthshire, Eng. died Dec. 15, 1947, Beaconsfield, Buckinghamshire), Welsh novelist and essayist, a forerunner of 20th century Gothic science-fiction”. There is a lot of pertinent introductory information in this opening paragraph, but I do not feel it captures Machen quite as effectively as the Wikipedia article. The Wikipedia article describes Machen more accurately as a “...Welsh author and mystic...” and describes his fiction as “...supernatural, fantasy, and horror fiction...”. The article notes how “The Great God Pan” was influential in the horror genre and even includes a Stephen King quote. It also makes a quick passing note of Machen's role in creating the legend of the Angel of Mons. Simply put, the Wikipedia introduction, like the rest of the article, has more information that gives a better picture of Arthur Machen.

In the last paragraph of the Encyclopaedia Britannica article, the article discusses a few of Machen's literary themes such as his romantic notions of nature and his interest in Roman and Welsh mysteries, but it glosses over the true depth of Machen's philosophy and views. For instance, the Encyclopaedia Britannica article describes Machen's attachment to the environment simply as: “...Machen responded to the spiritual power and antiquity of the British countryside”. It hardly mentions Machen's belief about the connection that exists between the mind and the landscape like the Wikipedia article. The Wikipedia article has an entire section dedicated to Machen's religious and philosophical views that outline and review his Christian beliefs, his adoration of nature, and his mysticism. The Wikipedia article also has a section that discusses the far-reaching influence of Machen which is not in the Encyclopaedia Britannica article.

Overall, the Encyclopaedia Britannica article is written like a quick and easy fact sheet about Machen's life whereas the Wikipedia article has more in-depth biographical information and analyses about his world and literary views in addition to examining his influence in the various mediums of art.

References, Contributors, Further Reading
There are 21 references in the Wikipedia article for Arthur Machen. Of these 21 references, there are predominantly books written by writers who are either experts on Machen or experts on the horror genre. There are a few journal articles on the list as well. The main body of the biography heavily used the biographical information found on the website of Arthur Machen's literary society, Friends of Arthur Machen. There is a further reading section on the page that includes 7 sources for further information on Machen. Each entry has Machen in its title suggesting that Machen is the main topic of these books. Interesting to note that The Life of Arthur Machen by John Gawsworth was joint-published by Tartarus Press and Friends of Arthur Machen. It's clear to see that Friends of Arthur Machen are quite pro-active in the academic discussions about Machen. I also noticed Weird Tale by S.T. Joshi, who I recognize as an established literary critic and writer within the horror genre, specifically the supernatural horror tales. Many of the contributors on the page had very skeletal-looking user pages that did not reveal any pertinent information regarding their expertise or qualifications, but one editor called Martinevans123 had a Platinum Editor Star medal on his page declaring him a Master Editor. That being said, most of Martinevans123's input was grammatical corrections to the article. User 66.79.215.230 has a lot of experience adding to articles, and he focused a lot on Machen's philosophy and religion section of the article, but he does not have any statement of his qualifications.

The Encyclopaedia Britannica article has no list of references and although they have a line stating “the topic Arthur Machen is discussed at the following external Web Sites” there are no actual links or notes. The article is simply declared to be an article from Encyclopaedia Britannica. After consulting the "About Us" section of the Encyclopaedia Britannica web site, I came across an excerpt to provide some general information on their articles. “In a world where questionable information is rampant, we provide products that inspire confidence, with content people can trust. We do this, as we have for many years, by collaborating with experts, scholar, educators, instructional designers, and user-experience specialists; by subjecting their work to rigorous editorial review; and by combining it all into learning products that are useful, reliable, and enjoyable”. Looking at the contributors section of the page, it declared that only four users had been working on the article besides the Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. Upon reading such a description of their information gathering and article creating process I would say that Encyclopaedia Britannica's process and credentials have a bit more of an authoritative standard.

After examining both articles, it is clear that the Wikipedia article uses plenty of resources and has many references of reliable books written on Machen, but a lot of the contributors who created and assembled the article do not have any statements as to their expertise or qualifications, which adds a certain level of uncertainty to the article. On the other hand, Encyclopaedia Britannica has an acclaimed process of information gathering and article writing, but they did not even list their references, which also adds a level of uncertainty to that information.

Assessment
Both the Wikipedia and Encyclopaedia Britannica articles on Arthur Machen provide similar information, but the main difference is that Wikipedia article has much more information in comparison to the concisely formatted Encyclopaedia Britannica article. Both have information on Machen's childhood, but Wikipedia has a chronological biography with subsections compared to a single paragraph on Encyclopaedia Britannica. Both articles have information on Machen's spirituality and philosophy, but Wikipedia has five paragraphs with detailed information compared to Encyclopaedia Britannica's three lines dedicated to the content. The Encyclopaedia Britannica article would be useful for someone who has no idea who Arthur Machen was and is interested in finding out some basic facts about his life and work. The Wikipedia article would be useful for anyone who wanted a detailed and extensive look at Machen. The Wikipedia article's main source is Friends of Arthur Machen so readers should feel confident in the reliability of the source.

There is a banner notice on the Wikipedia article that warns that the article requires more citations to help the article achieve Wikipedia's standard of verifiability. This could be because the article relies on a limited amount of resources in certain areas instead of diversifying their scope or because there are chunks of paragraphs that have no citations. The substantial biography section of the Wikipedia relies mainly on the Friends of Arthur Machen reference so supporting resources could be added to give a more well-rounded presentation of the information. The philosophy and religion section has only one citation in a five paragraph section so some citations could be added to give that section more academic authority.

Besides having much more content than the Encyclopaedia Britannica, the Wikipedia article also has subjects that the other article does not have, like Machen's influence on various artists and people as well as the section on the literary society dedicated to Machen. The Wikipedia article has undergone page after page of edits and is still being edited with the last edit coming in October, 2014 while Encylcopaedia Britannica has only had six total edits in the article's life span since its inception in 2006. Alongside the Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica there was only four other contributors without profile descriptions compared to the endless contributors on Machen's article in Wikipedia.

If the researcher came up to me at a reference desk asking for basic information on Arthur Machen, I would direct him to the concise article in Encyclopaedia Britannica. But, if a researcher came up to me and was looking for a more extensive resource to start his research on Machen then I would direct him to the Wikipaedia article, although I would warn him against solely relying on the Wikipedia article as an authoritative resource due to the warning banner.

Resources
Camara, Anthony. "Abominable Transformations: Becoming-Fungus In Arthur Machen's The Hill Of Dreams." Gothic Studies 16.1 (2014): 9-23. Academic Search Complete. Web. 3 Nov. 2014.

Del Principe, David. "Introduction: The Ecogothic In The Long Nineteenth Century." Gothic Studies 16.1 (2014): 1-8. Academic Search Complete. Web. 3 Nov. 2014.

Eckersley, Adrian. "A Theme In The Early Work Of Arthur Machen: "Degeneration." English Literature In Transition, 1880-1920 35.3 (1992): 276-287. Academic Search Complete. Web. 3 Nov. 2014

Forlini, Stefania. "Modern Narratives And Decadent Things In Arthur Machen's "The Three Impostors.." English Literature In Transition, 1880-1920 55.4 (2012): 479-498. Academic Search Complete. Web. 3 Nov. 2014.

Freeman, Nicholas. "Arthur Machen: Ecstasy And Epiphany." Literature & Theology 24.3 (2010): 242-255. Academic Search Complete. Web. 3 Nov. 2014.

Hassler, Donald M. "Arthur Machen And Genre: Filial And Fannish Alternatives." Extrapolation (Kent State University Press) 33.2 (1992): 115-127. Academic Search Complete. Web. 3 Nov. 2014.

Jones, Darryl. "Borderlands: Spiritualism And The Occult In Fin De Siècle And Edwardian Welsh And Irish Horror." Irish Studies Review 17.1 (2009): 31-44. Academic Search Complete. Web. 3 Nov. 2014.

Kandola, Sondeep. "Celtic Occultism And The Symbolist Mode In The Fin-De-Siècle Writings Of Arthur Machen And W. B. Yeats." English Literature In Transition, 1880-1920 56.4 (2013): 497-518. Academic Search Complete. Web. 3 Nov. 2014.

Pasi, Marco. "Arthur Machen's Panic Fears: Western Esotericism And The Irruption Of Negative Epistemology." Aries 7.1 (2007): 63-83. Academic Search Complete. Web. 3 Nov. 2014.

Willis, Martin T. "Scientific Portraits In Magical Frames: The Construction Of Preternatural Narrative In The Work Of E. T. A. Hoffmann And Arthur Machen." Extrapolation (Kent State University Press) 35.3 (1994): 186-200. Academic Search Complete. Web. 3 Nov. 2014.