User talk:T.yale0001/sandbox

Hello,

You assessment of the Andes articles is very interesting; I had several questions and comments about it, most of which are very minor.

There is a typo in the “Britiannica Article: Andes Mountains”, final paragraph, first sentence. “. . . through he left. . . ”

You stated that the article is receiving constant editing. I was thrilled to see you included who the top editors were, and was wondering if you knew what their field of specialization was.

I notice that in the “Comparison” section you begin to write in the first person, and again in the “overall assessment” and “conclusion”. There is nothing wrong with your argument, but it would be more compelling if it is re-worked to exclude specially referring to yourself. For example, your statement of Britannica’s tone could be “The scientific ton of the Britiannica article stands out in comparison to that of wikipedia”. There are also a few parts where you begin to assign human qualities to non-living things. The example that really stood out to me was also in “Comparison”, “Britiannica however has other ideas when it states” This sentence can simply be “Britiannica, however, states otherwise.” Again, all of this is fine as is, but my inner academic-paper-writer screams change it.

Your concluding sentence of “Comparison” very accurately addresses the problem of wikipedia! I feel this problem is relative all of the entire wiki-mediums]

This was a very thorough and well thought out analysis.

Pshar (talk) 15:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Very thorough analysis here - was this from two reviewers or just one? I only see one user name here. Don't forget to sign your TALK posts with the 4 tilde ~ symbols Libringreen (talk) 23:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)