User talk:Shi00038/sandbox

You produced what I think to be an unbiased assessment and I was glad to read that you did not automatically assume Wikipedia was better because it has (more) references. EB articles are concise, yes, but generally clean and well written. It's true that they do not always contain references but to my understanding, that is because they are a primary source - meaning they ARE the source. I'm glad to read that I am not the only one that didn't jump on the Wikipedia-has-more-references-therefore-is-better bandwagon. Secondary sources need references more than primary sources do.

Memelme (talk) 00:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)