User:Tous0022/sandbox

Wikipedia
Actias luna
 * "Actias luna." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 30 Aug. 2014. Web. 23 Sep. 2014.

Ginkgo biloba
 * "Ginkgo biloba." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 23 Sep. 2014. Web. 23 Sep. 2014.

Audrey Tautou
 * "Audrey Tautou." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 26 Jul. 2014. Web. 23 Sep. 2014.

Articles and MLA Citations from Encyclopedia Brittanica

 * Luna Moth
 * "luna moth." Encyclopaedia Britannica. Encyclopaedia Britannica Online Academic Edition. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2014. Web. 23 Sep. 2014.


 * Ginkgo Tree
 * "ginkgo." Encyclopaedia Britannica. Encyclopaedia Britannica Online Academic Edition. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2014. Web. 23 Sep. 2014.


 * Audrey Tautou
 * "Audrey Tautou." Encyclopaedia Britannica. Encyclopaedia Britannica Online Academic Edition. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2014. Web. 23 Sep. 2014.

Thoughts on my chosen articles
As far as choosing the articles that I wanted to base my assignment on, I chose to pick three subjects that I thought would be quite different overall, but that I also had an interest in. For the first, the Luna Moth (or Actias luna), I was quite surprised to see the difference in length between the Wikipedia article and the Encyclopedia Brittanica entry. The EB entry only had very basic information, such as the vague location of the Luna moth (described as eastern North America), but Wikipedia had information that described the Luna moth's location from as far as Mexico to the Great Plains, all the way to Quebec and Nova Scotia. The Wikipedia article was also much more pleasing to my eyes, with many photographs of the Luna moth's life cycle and their colouring and patterns. The EB article didn't show any pictures, it was quite bare-bones.

For the articles on the Ginkgo tree, I was, again, surprised to see how in-depth the Wikipedia article was compared to the Encyclopedia Brittanica article. Where the EB entry on the Ginkgo was a little more in-depth than the entry about Luna moths, the information that was given was still very 'bare bones'. The Wikipedia article gave quite a lot of information about the physical description and reproduction cycle, the tree's habitat, etymology, as well as the Ginkgo's cultural relevance and even culinary uses.

Considering the two previous articles and their drastic differences on Encyclopedia Brittanica and Wikipedia, the fact that both sources had essentially the same information on Audrey Tautou surprised me. The Brittanica entry was very short, but gave the same information as Wikipedia, including her filmography and brief biographical information. Wikipedia, the same as with the other two articles, went into more detail, but I think that the Brittanica entry would be easier to navigate if one was looking for quick information on this specific actress.

After doing this research, I was surprised to learn how fleshed-out Wikipedia articles are. Though Wikipedia might not be a completely concrete source, the quantity of information that it has is huge compared to Encyclopedia Brittanica's utilitarian approach in writing entries. I could understand Brittanica's need for small entries when it is in print, but when researching online, sometimes a large quantity of information is necessary, and I found Wikipedia to be quite good as a learning tool.

Wikipedia Summary
The Wikipedia article starts off by giving the Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, and Korean titles for the Ginkgo tree and describes how it can be also called the maidenhair tree or the 'gingko' tree. The article goes on to say that the Ginkgo has no living relatives and originated from China. Also, it mentions that the Ginkgo is a living fossil that has been around for 270 million years. Continuing on, the article goes into a physical description of the Ginkgo tree, describing the long lankiness of young Ginkgos and how as they become older, they not only grow taller, but wider as well. The Ginkgo is also a shade-intolerant tree, and that they prefer to grow in places with unstable, disturbed soil, like on riverbeds and the edges of cliffs.

The Ginkgo's branches are described as short and knobby shoots, and as they grow, more and more branches shoot off of those original ones and the leaves form upon them in clusters. The leaves of the Ginkgo are fan-shaped (that is, tapered at the end closest to the branch and widening at the edge). The Ginkgo is dioecious, with two genders, and their seeds are fertilized right before the leaves drop from the trees.

The article also has information about the distribution of the Ginkgo tree, how it was named, its history, growth, uses in medicine and food, and how it is a symbol of the Hiroshima disaster of WWII.

Encyclopedia Britannica Summary
The Encyclopedia Britannica article begins with describing the history of the Ginkgo tree, including its prehistoric ancestors of the division Ginkgophyta. The Ginkgo tree, the Britannica article continues, is a living fossil and can be found in both Japan and China, being particularly popular in Japanese temple gardens. The article also says that the tree is pyramid-shaped, with grey, cork-like bark and broad, leathery leaves. It also describes the colour of the leaves, from a greenish grey and somewhere between yellow and green in the summer to vibrant gold in autumn, when they quickly fall. The name of the Ginkgo is from a word that in both Chinese and Japanese means 'silver nut', referring to the seeds that are actually edible when cooked. The Brittanica article also has a little add-on at the end about the Ginkgo's use as a medicinal product.

Comparison of Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica
It is immediately evident upon reading both articles to see that the Wikipedia article is more detailed than the Britannica article. Where the Britannica entry is rather brief, Wikipedia goes into much more detail. For example, the Britannica article describes the Ginkgo tree's reproduction in a single sentence ("Microsporangia (pollen-forming structures) and female ovules are borne on separate trees. Pollen grains are carried to the female trees by the wind."), while Wikipedia describes the reproductive cycle in extreme detail, adding in how this information was discovered by Japanese botanist Sakugoro Hirase in the late 1800s.

The Britannica article seems to be focused on providing information without details, like the fact that parts of the Ginkgo can be used in traditional Chinese medicine and that it helps memory, whereas Wikipedia gives explanation on not only what diseases Ginkgo can help to alleviate, but also any possible side-effects and medications that conflict with the use of Ginkgo. The history of the tree is also very prevalent on Wikipedia, with sections on how its name was derived, to its paleontological information, to its cultural relevance in Japan in the twentieth century.

Both resources share similar information, but it is clearly obvious as soon as one reads both articles that Wikipedia, in this situation, is a more viable resource if one is simply looking for a large quantity of information. Both articles have quality information, but Wikipedia provides fleshed-out details and credible references that will probably be a better source of information to anyone who is looking to study the Ginkgo tree.

References and Further Reading
The article on the Ginkgo from Wikipedia has undergone many changes, most surprisingly in the realm of vandalism. On the first page of the history, four records of edits based on vandalism were noted. There were also many additions and edits, where people provided more information or redacted what they deemed as irrelevant. It is difficult to know if these claims are true, however, when the information on each person who changes it can be so confidential. The Britannica article has also gone under renovations, so to speak, with many new topics being added or removed by users like Yamini Chauhan or Darshana Das, in particular. One issue with Britannica is that one is not able to view information about the users who edit the article; only a name can be seen. Britannica's article has mostly additions, where Wikipedia's article has been completely changed at one time or another.

For both Wikipedia and Britannica, further reading/external links are listed. Wikipedia has articles about how to grow Ginkgo trees from seeds, information about the tree from Plants for a Future and the University of Maryland Medical Center, as well as a link to a gymnosperm database and paleontological information from the University of California. On the other hand, Britannica links to articles from websites like How Stuff Works, Garden Guides, Burke's Backyard, and Buzzle. By looking at these two lists, it can be assumed that Wikipedia's external links would be more credible.

The collection of references for Wikipedia's article on the Ginkgo tree has over 60 citations, with everything from academic journals to books on allergy-free gardening. Their See Also section has further reading on the man who introduced the Ginkgo to America, a state park in Washington that features the trees, and a list of edible seeds and an entire section on herbalism.

Final Assessment of Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica
In my opinion, the Wikipedia article on the Ginkgo Biloba tree is very well put-together. There has been great care given to it, and the many editors and contributors are a sign of that. Where many articles only have a few editors, especially like the Britannica article, the users of Wikipedia have added important, relevant information while keeping the article concise and well-organized. My evaluation of Wikipedia in this respect is very positive. Wikipedia provides information on many more topics than Britannica, such as the 'Culinary Uses' section, the parts of the article about etymology and paleontology, and the different uses for the plant. That being said, Wikipedia is a difficult source to trust, considering that anyone can have an account and add information that upon first glance may seem genuine, but is actually false. Because of this, Wikipedia cannot be entirely trusted. However, the 'Talk' section shows a great amount of debate; people are very focused on making sure the article is relevant and has trustworthy information. Unfortunately, Wikipedia will never be an authoritative academic resource, which is a shame because it has many vital sources of information that contribute to the Ginkgo article.

The Britannica article does not feel as well-written as the Wikipedia article, and, in my opinion, is not up to par. Despite the fact this is a relatively rare and small subject, Britannica has minimal information, only the bare facts. Wikipedia has detail, history, important facts. However, everything on Britannica is considered worthy of academic citing, and this can ensure students are doing the right research. They may have to dig a little deeper and cite more than just Britannica if they want the wealth of information that is on Wikipedia, but one will understand the basic information on the Ginkgo Biloba tree if they read the Britannica article. It is a good article, but I think that for such a prestigious, respected encyclopedia, Britannica should be required to provide more detail. For example, Wikipedia has a large section on the medicinal uses for the Ginkgo; Britannica only has two sentences. I can understand a short entry in a physical book, but online, space is virtually limitless.

Additional Resources on the Ginkgo Biloba Tree
Jenkyn, Tanya. "Living Fossil." Earth Garden 167 (2014): 16-19. MasterFILE Elite. Web. 29 Oct. 2014.

Bussell, Gene B. "The Golden Trees Of Fall." Southern Living 49.10 (2014): 47-49. MasterFILE Elite. Web. 29 Oct. 2014.

Barth, Brian. "Edibles OUT OF THE BOX." Horticulture 111.3 (2014): 28-33. MasterFILE Elite. Web. 29 Oct. 2014.

Bussell, Gene. "Bright Leaves Of Fall." Southern Living 42.10 (2007): 104-107. MasterFILE Elite. Web. 29 Oct. 2014.

HUBER, JEANNE. "Trees And Shrubs For Fall Color." This Old House 15.8 (2010): 47-50. MasterFILE Elite. Web. 29 Oct. 2014.

Knapp, Sandra. "Botany: A Tree For All Time." Nature 495.7440 (2013): 170-171. MasterFILE Elite. Web. 29 Oct. 2014.

"A Trio Of Living Fossils." American Forests 111.1 (2005): 44-46. MasterFILE Elite. Web. 29 Oct. 2014.

MCCOOK, ALISON. "Natural Selections." Arthritis Today 25.5 (2011): 80-87. MasterFILE Elite. Web. 29 Oct. 2014.

Kuchment, Anna. "Ginkgo: The Tree That Time Forgot." Scientific American 308.6 (2013): 88. MasterFILE Elite. Web. 29 Oct. 2014.

Jackson, Carolyn. "The Story Of Ginkgoes." Spider 10.9 (2003): 26. MasterFILE Elite. Web. 29 Oct. 2014.