User:Reb75/sandbox

The three Wikipedia articles under consideration for the first assignment are the Dionne quintuplets, Richard III and Lucy Maud Montgomery.

Devereux, Cecily. "Lucy Maud Montgomery." Canadian Encyclopedia. Historica-Dominion, n.d. Web. 25 Sep. 2012.

"Dionne quintuplets." Canadian Encyclopedia. Historica-Dominion, n.d. Web. 25 Sep. 2012.

"Dionne quintuplets." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia,18 Sep. 2012. Web. 25 Sep. 2012.

"Lucy Maud Montgomery." Encyclopedia of World Biography. Encyclopedia.com. 2004. Web. 25 Sep. 2012

"Lucy Maud Montgomery." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 27 Aug. 2012. Web. 25 Sep. 2012.

"Richard III of England." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 25 Sep. 2012. Web. 25 Sep. 2012.

"Richard III." Encyclopedia of World Biography. Encyclopedia.com. 2004. Web. 25 Sep. 2012.

The Dionne quintuplets Wikipedia page has a lot of information and there are many articles about the quints in other reference sources. At first glance, Wikipedia appears to have more information than the Canadian Encyclopedia. The Dionne family is intriguing due to the fact that there were five identical babies born naturally and the government took them away and made them a tourist attraction (Karen Jordan, The Dionne Quintuplets).

Richard III is an interesting character in history. The recent discovery of his possible remains (Richard III dig: 'strong evidence' bones are lost king. BBB.co.uk) is what prompted his inclusion in this assignment. Wikipedia seems to have more information about his life and death than my other source. It also contains an update on the excavation of the remains believed to be his. The Encyclopedia of World Biography does not contain any recent information.

Lucy Maud Montgomery is best known as the author of the Anne of Green Gables series of novels. All three of the sources on Lucy Maud Montgomery seem to be very detailed. None of them stand out at first glance to be a better resource than the others.

The Dionne quintuplets and Lucy Maud Montgomery were easy to research in the Canadian Encyclopedia as they are both Canadian figures. Finding an encyclopedia with an entry for Richard III was a bit more of a challenge. The encyclopedia.com search engine searched over 100 online encyclopedias and came back with an appropriate entry in the Encyclopedia of World Biography. Initially, Wikipedia appears to be just as good a resource as traditional encyclopedias, if not better. The editors of Wikipedia can include as much information as they chose and it can be updated in a timely manner. Other encyclopedia's are limited in how much information they can print and how often it gets updated.

Richard III
Wikipedia

The Wikipedia article on Richard III is quite long. The article has some information of the early years of Richard and his ancestry, up to the time of his accession to the throne of England. Not much seems to be known about his personal life, other than the major recorded milestones; his birth, marriage, children, military and political careers. His death is quite detailed in the article. He died at the Battle of Bosworth, defending the crown from the Henry Tudor. There are conflicting reports about what actually happened that day on the field.

Richard’s reputation and physical description are in conflict. There are reports that he was severely deformed and crippled, and other reports that he had some small deformities (one shoulder higher than the other). There are discrepancies about his personality as well. Some historians view Richard as a savage person, while others claim that he was no more savage than any other man of his stature during that time in England. The Wikipedia article goes on to mention all the appearances of Richard III in culture. It describes the authors, directors and actors. The final part of the article mention the archeological investigation and discovery of skeletal remains in Leicester, England believed to be those of Richard III.

Encyclopedia Britannica The article from Encyclopedia Britannica about Richard III is a decent length. He grew up during the War of the Roses and witnessed his father and brothers fighting for control of England from the Lancaster dynasty. He was still a child when his brother Edward IV took the crown. This changed his life, as he became a royal prince. As a young adult, Richard’s career was military and political. Richard’s accession to the throne after his brother’s death is also covered in the article. It explains how he was able to take the crown, even though is brother had male heirs. There is a long description of why Edward IV’s heirs weren’t considered legitimate by some and how Richard dealt with them.

Richard’s reign as king of England was short lived. The article explains some of his decisions as the head of England. There is also mention of military and political factions at the time that were conspiring against Richard III. His death at the Battle of Bosworth Field is mentioned, but not much detail is given. Richard’s character is briefly discussed in the article. Many scholars wrote disparaging things about Richard III after his death, at the encouragement of the current king, Henry VII and his court. Scholars today are less inclined to see his as either a monster or a saint. The truth probably lies somewhere in between.

Compare and Contrast

The two articles have much of the same information. They both cover Richard’s formative years and his ancestry. They are similar, but the Wikipedia article focuses on where Richard was living and his military career. The Wikipedia article also goes into more detail than the Britannica article. They breakdown his formative years into two sections: childhood, and early adulthood during the reign of Edward IV. The Britannica article lumps it all together, to cover the time from his birth to his accession to the throne. It mentions his military career, but seems to focus more on his personal life and how that changed the political landscape.

Both articles cover his move to the throne. They also go into detail about Richard’s way of dealing with Edward IV’s heirs – the princes in the tower. The Wikipedia article is biased towards Richard III, using words like accession to throne while the Britannica article calls it usurpation. Wikipedia takes the viewpoint that Richard III was thrust into the head of state roll, whereas the Britannica article indicates that Richard pushed others out of the way to become king. The Wikipedia article states “...a petition was drawn up asking Richard to assume the throne. He accepted on 26 June and was crowned at Westminster Abbey on 6 July 1483”. In contrast, the Britannica article states “With both princes in his power, Richard publicly declared his claim to the throne, and on June 26 he usurped it.” The reign and fall of Richard III is briefly covered in the Britannica article. It appears that Richard III was not the most popular ruler. According to the article, many of his plans could not be “implemented in a reign of only two years or in the face of serious opposition” and another plan “was vetoed by his supporters and was highly unpopular.” Richard’s death only warrants a short sentence, in a small paragraph about the Battle of Bosworth Field. It states “Fighting bravely, Richard himself was killed.” Richard’s reign is also covered quite briefly in the Wikipedia article, noting only that “Richard and his wife Anne endowed King’s College and Queen’s College, Cambridge, and made grants to the church. He planned the establishment of a large chantry chapel in York Minster, with over one hundred priests. Richard also founded the College of Arms.” His legacy is stated later on in the article. The Battle of Bosworth is covered in detail. Wikipedia explains the setup and reason for the battle. Richard’s death is also given more detail, including his attempt to slay Henry Tudor himself after a number of his supporters’ switched sides. Richard was “...within a sword’s length of Henry himself before being finally surrounded by Sir William Stanley’s men and killed.” His death is stated as being “so violent that the king’s helmet was driven into his skull.”

Richard III’s character is mentioned in both articles, though the Wikipedia article has more information on his possible deformities and where these beliefs may have come from. His image was tarnished by the Tudor dynasty that followed his death. The Britannica article mentions the tearing down of his character and more recent arguments for his merits; being a good husband, ruler and loyal subject. It goes on to mention that “the truth lies in between....Nice people did not make good kings.”

References and Contributors

The Wikipedia article has some information not mentioned in the Britannica at all. It talks about Richard III’s portrayal in books, movies, plays and television shows. It also talks about the recent archaeological investigation into remains that are believed to be Richard III. The latest entry about this is from September 2012, explaining where the skeleton was found and how they are going to try and prove his identity. There is also a mention of a possible burial site if the remains prove to be Richard III.

The author of the Britannica article is Michael Hicks, a credible expert in the field. Mr Hicks is a professor of medieval history at the University of Winchester, England. In contrast, the Wikipedia article is written and updated by many people with no way to verify who the contributors are or their qualifications. It does, however, have a long list of references. Much of the information comes from the book Richard the Third, by Paul Murray Kendall. There are current articles regarding the investigation into the possible remains at Leicester, as well as links to websites with more information on Richard III, that period in English history and the excavation.

Both articles have a bibliography with further reading to learn more about Richard III. The Wikipedia bibliography is longer, but it only gives the title, author and publishing information for the books. The bibliography in the Britannica has fewer books, but it indicates what information you will find in any given book. For example, “Richard’s rule and his retainers are examined in Rosemary Horrox, Richard III: A Study of Service (1989, reissued 1991).” Most of the books mentioned in both articles date from 1956-2005 which is fairly recent considering the fact that the subject has been dead for over 500 years.

Assessment

Both of the articles are very through. They each have a viewpoint they are taking, and without any new evidence coming to light, there is no real way of knowing exactly what happened or what Richard III was like. The main points in each article are the same -things like his birth and death, where he lived and what honours were bestowed upon him, for example becoming the duke of Gloucester and a knight of the Garter. Looking beyond those points is where the discrepancies start to come into play. Questions remain about what Richard III had in mind when he took the heirs to Edward IV and put them in the Tower of London. There will always be opposing viewpoints, and the articles seem to be at odds on this as well as other points.

The Wikipedia article went into more detail about the death of Richard III. It was taken from another Wikipedia article, the Battle of Bosworth Field. It certainly makes for a more interesting read. The Britannica article simply states that Richard was killed. The Wikipedia article has more details, stating “Tradition holds that his final words were ‘treason, treason, treason!’, when he found Lord Stanley had turned against him. The Welsh accounts state that Sir Wyllyam Gardynyr killed King Richard III with a poleaxe. The blows were so violent that the king's helmet was driven into his skull. The account reads, "Richard’s horse was trapped in the marsh where he was slain by one of Rhys Thomas’ men, a commoner named Wyllyam Gardynyr." Another account has Rhys ap Thomas himself slaying the king. Richard III was the last English king to be killed in battle.”

The Wikipedia article has an advantage over the Britannica article in that it can be updated with new information quickly. Being able to read about the archeological dig in Leicester and the discovery of remains believed to be those of Richard III makes it more relevant. There is no way to know when the Britannica article will be updated.

Overall, both articles are good to use as a reference in the case of Richard III. They have been well researched and inform the reader of his life and the time he lived. With a subject like Richard III, a historical figure that doesn’t have any new information coming to light about his life, both of the articles are reliable. With the exception of mentioning the discovery of the skeletal remains, nothing in the Britannica article is missing. Readers need to be aware that with there are going to be conflicting opinions on his motives and personality when considering a person that lived so long ago. There is no way to prove exactly what he was like or what he thought. In that era, any new monarch could, and often did, tarnish the reputation and image of his predecessor. As well, many writers were partisan and they didn’t have intimate knowledge of Richard, so there is no way to know what he thought and planned. This is a fault that lies not with the articles, but with the passage of time and the loss of reliable witnesses to the truth.