User talk:Duri0014/sandbox

This article is written very clearly and ver professionally. It simply explains the basic facts on Shakespeare and compare the two sources well. Both articles are good sources and this articles explains that further. The further readings are good sources and for a person researching Shakespeare a great place to continue!

Nice job. I agree with your conclusion, Britannica appears to be the better source. With better citations and a lengthier article overall, it would be the better encyclopedia to use. Although you already state that the Wikipedia article is shorter, I think for some reason, when they do end up being longer than authoritative encyclopedia articles, individuals think they are a better source. Which is not true! Just a thought.admualberta (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Good comparison! A little jumpy but it got the point across. I think it’s interesting that that even though the article Wikipedia article focused on so much of Shakespeare’s life that it still wouldn’t be as good as the Britannica article. The subject I did the assignment on, had long articles as well. I also found that the Britannica article was much better then the Wikipedia article. That’s an interesting point admualberta. I do think the length of an article makes people think it is good or bad, when in reality longer articles can be just as bad as an article with few words; or just as good. Librarystudent1 (talk)

Great detailed feedback here, thanks for posting! Libringreen (talk) 01:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)