User talk:SamCorner94/sandbox

I wonder if longer articles could have been chosen for a more detailed comparison. You mentioned the wikipedia article was twice as long yet said both contain the same information. Does this mean there is a lot of filler or irrelevant information in wikipedia or that the wikipedia article covers the same information in more detail? Mgaaftink (talk) 13:44, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Informative, but very short. I'd like to see more about what you personally learned from the articles and which you found more useful. =) Sarsafrass (talk) 13:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Extremely brief ... why is that? I would also like to see more of your opinion on the article. Scmcewen (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:33, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

It lacked traditional research essay structure. This may be the reason as to why it lacked insight. Kayosin87 (talk) 13:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

It's really really brief! I think seeing more information on your thoughts on which article has the best information would be really great to see. Afoxcalledcallie (talk) 13:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

You've done the research, but your lack of analysis hurts your claims.LetOffSomeSteamBennett (talk) 13:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

It was very informative on the subject but maybe lacked some personal opinion, which would have made it longer. Still good research. Jonno 360 (talk) 13:47, 18 November 2013 (UTC)