User:Viccamc/sandbox

My Topics

 * 1) Supernova
 * 2) George R. R. Martin
 * 3) Netflix
 * 4) Scotland

Why
To pick my topics I went through a very detailed selection process (read: I looked around my room for inspiration). I picked the supernova because they are fascinating: it's simultaneously the death of a star as well as the birth of many new stars. George R. R. Martin was chosen because he's the author of one of my favourite series. Netflix was chosen because this project would have been finished a lot faster if it wasn't around. Lastly Scotland was picked because it was home for most of my family.

Comparing
By simply going by the layout of the sites, I have to say Wikipedia gets to the point. The layout is clean and simple, it gives you a brief outline of what to expect from the article. On the right side you have a breakdown of quick facts about the article (important dates, people involved and pictures) and on the left side you have the table of contents which gives you the ability to jump to whichever section you what the most. Wikipedia simply has more information to offer it's users, and this is because it allows everyone to add to it. No one knows everything about one subject so by allowing multiple people to add what they know, you can give the best information to the people that want it.

Wikipedia
The Wikipedia article on the supernova or supernovae begins with a brief explanation of what a supernova is, how it got it’s name and how it’s created. The content of the article then delves into the discovery of the supernovae and how scientists were able to put it in it’s own category instead of simply adding it to another category of novae. Wikipedia then lays out the different classifications of supernovae into types one and types two and then proceeds to explain, in detail, the current models of supernovae. It then goes on to talk about the interstellar impact that supernovae have: they are a key source of elements heavier than oxygen, their role in stellar evolution and how the kinetic energy of an expanding supernova remnant can trigger a new star formation and it also talks about the effects a supernova has on earth. The article ends with a list of stars in the Milky Way that may become supernovae in the next million years.

Encyclopedia Britannica
The Encyclopedia Britannica starts out in a similar fashion to the Wikipedia article; it gives a brief explanation, explains how it got its name and how they are created. The article then moves onto the history of the supernovae, when they were first seen and who saw them. The article mentions that Canadian astronomer Ian K. Shelton spotted the “closest and most easily observed” supernova on February 27, 1987. It then moves on to the different types of supernovae and even lists a few of the notable ones. However this seems to be the extent of the article.

Comparisons
The beginning content of the two articles is very much the same. Both give brief definitions as well as explaining how they got their name and how they are created. The Encyclopedia Britannica chooses to talk about the history of the supernovae after the 17th century and talks about the most famous supernovae, which happened in 1054 and was seen in one of the horns of the constellation Taurus. The Encyclopedia Britannica then lists off other prominent supernovae, but not in any detail.

Wikipedia discusses the observation history by starting with the earliest recorded supernovae in 185 and was seen by unknown Chinese astronomers. Wikipedia does discus the 1054 supernova, but only briefly. Wikipedia moves on to talk about the development of the telescope and how valuable it was to the field of supernovae discovery, the history of the discovery of the supernova and how it was given it’s own category as well as the naming convention.

Both articles then move on to talk about the two different types of supernovae (types one and two). While Wikipedia chooses to outline the two types and then move onto the current models of supernovae, The Encyclopedia Britannica talks about the two types and their subtypes in minor detail and then provides a table of some notable supernovae. This is where The Encyclopedia Britannica ends, while the Wikipedia article goes on to talk about the interstellar impact as well as giving a list of current stars in the Milky Way that may become supernovae in the next million years.

Assessment
While looking through both articles in both of the encyclopedias I found that the information given was very similar. While the articles may focus differently on certain areas, they both have the same information. However, the Wikipedia article seems to have more information on the subject as a whole. While the Encyclopedia Britannica give clear and concise information on the history and the different types of supernovae, it doesn’t even talk about the current models we have or even the interstellar impact that a supernova can have. The Encyclopedia Britannica also lacks in further reading, at the end of the article it only lists nine other articles that may discuses the topic of the supernova.

The Wikipedia article not only delves into great detail on the current models on supernova it talks about the interstellar impact. Another area that Wikipedia thrives in is the further reading section. Not only do they have nine other Wikipedia articles that may discuss that topic, they also have six non-wiki links at the end of the article many of them coming from popular physics magazines or books written about the topic. Wikipedia is also able to incorporate further reading into the main body of the article as well. Underneath all of the articles subheadings (save for seven of them) there is a link to the main article of that sub heading e.g. underneath “Milky Way candidates” there is a link to the main article entitled “List of supernova candidates”

While looking through contributors for both sites I found out that the Encyclopedia Britannica was created by the editors of Encyclopedia Britannica and is maintained by them as well. The last time the article was updated was on October 27, 2009 by Erik Gregersen who is the main contributor to the Supernova article. He was also the last person to add to the article by adding a video about supernovae on March 28, 2011.

Wikipedia was last edited November 7, 2013 and it seems it was only a minor edit. However, one of the contributors for the supernova article has been blocked for vandalizing the “Never Gonna Give You Up” Wikipedia article as well as the “Taurus (constellation)” article. It seems like the two times he edited the supernova article was well received and was not considered vandalism. The article itself is a featured article and has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. It was even a featured article on Wikipedia’s main page on August 3, 2007.

While the Wikipedia article may have more information, I find the Encyclopedia Britannica easier to read. I would probably recommend people to the Encyclopedia Britannica article first, as it gets to the point and is very easy to under stand. If they wanted more information I wouldn’t hesitate to forward them onto the Wikipedia article.

Additional Resources

 * 1) Vink, Jacco. "Supernova Remnants: The X-Ray Perspective." Astronomy & Astrophysics Review 20.1 (2012): 1-120. Academic Search Complete. Web. 10 Nov. 2013.
 * 2) Connolly, Natalia, and Brian Connolly. "A Bayesian Approach To Classifying Supernovae With Color." (2009): arXiv. Web. 10 Nov. 2013.
 * 3) Mazure, Alain, and Stéphane Basa. Exploding Superstars: Understanding Supernovae and Gamma-Ray Bursts. London: Praxis, 2009. N. pag. Print.
 * 4) Marschall, Laurence A. The Supernova Story. London: Plenum Press, 1988. N. pag. Print.
 * 5) Boyd, Richard. Stardust, Supernovae and the Molecules of Life. London: Springer, 2011. N. pag. Print.
 * 6) Foley, Ryan J., et al. "TYPE Iax SUPERNOVAE: A NEW CLASS OF STELLAR EXPLOSION." Astrophysical Journal 767.1 (2013): 1-28. 'Academic Search Complete. Web. 10 Nov. 2013.
 * 7) Nazaryan, T., et al. "Paired Galaxies With Different Activity Levels And Their Supernovae." Astrophysics & Space Science 347.2 (2013): 365-374. Academic Search Complete. Web. 10 Nov. 2013.
 * 8) Thielemann, F.-K., et al. "Massive Stars And Their Supernovae." Astronomy With Radioactivities (2011): 153. Publisher Provided Full Text Searching File. Web. 10 Nov. 2013.
 * 9) Badenes, Carles. "X-Ray Studies Of Supernova Remnants: A Different View Of Supernova Explosions." (2010): arXiv. Web. 10 Nov. 2013.
 * 10) Slane, Patrick O. A Study Of Supernova Remnants With Center-Filled X-Ray Morphology [Microform] : NASA Grant NAG5-3486, Annual Report For The Period 15 November 1996 Through 14 November 1997 / Principal Investigator, Patrick O. Slane. n.p.: [Washington, DC : National Aeronautics and Space Administration ; Springfield, Va. : National Technical Information Service, distributor, 1997], 1997. Government Printing Office Catalog. Web. 10 Nov. 2013.