Meeting the Criteria

At first glance, when looking at the articles on Michelle Citron and Marshall McLuhan there are some noticeable differences that stand out. When looking at the appearance, it is easy to note that McLuhan’s bibliography is much more thorough than Citron’s. The structure of the McLuhan’s article has more parts to it.  Although both pieces talk about the person’s work, McLuhan has a much more detailed description under each of his major works. Citron is lacking the support to all of the claims and facts being made. In regards to references, McLuhan’s Wikipedia page has a lot more going on for it. It gives us credible sources to fact check which causes me to believe that the information being portrayed on screen is accurate, whereas in Citron’s article, I question whether or not everything being said is. She has some sources to back up the statements, but her article is still left vague. I think due to the article being on Wikipedia, both McLuhan and Citron’s pages follow a similar tone. They are informative and unbiased. Another key point that came to notice was the use of illustration. In McLuhan’s page there are two images used. First is a picture of McLuhan and the second is a street sign with his name on it whereas Citron’s page has no images.

Henry Sidgwick’s two biographies have very different feels to them. One is from Wikipedia and one is from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Each article gives a description of Sidgwick but the Wikipedia is very undeveloped. I get a brief sense of what makes Sidgwick important, but nothing too detailed. The structure of the Wikipedia page only gives us a short biography and the names of a few of his works but don’t go into any specifics.  There are no images used in the Stanford piece, and the only image on the Wikipedia page is a image of Sidgwick himself. I don’t think either biography really uses images to its fullest potential. The Wikipedia article, though in need of work, follows the idea of staying unbiased. It talks about Sidgwick as a person to look at whereas the Stanford article strays from unbiased a little, but for the most part gets back to being unbiased. For example, “Henry Sidgwick was one of the most influential ethical philosophers of the Victorian era”; this comes off as being biased. Who says he was one of the most influential ethical philosophers? Both biographies have a list of references, but the Stanford one has a more detailed and more extensive works cited. This allows us as viewers to find the piece as credible. If I were to use a biography as a source for a paper, I would use the Stanford one because it gives me the most factual looking information.

From Wikipedia, I have chosen the article titled Hey Jude, a song written by the Beatles. I think for the most part, it fits the FA criteria. It appears to be well written and thorough, well researched, neutral and stable. It has a lead that describes the song and gives detail about what the rest of the piece will be on. It gives us a solid structure of the song as well as the charts it hit its highs on. It is all backed up with sources which gives it solidity and an accurate description. It stays on topic and gives us an image of the record and the Beatles. They follow the concept of “No Original Research” because they have taken notes and numbers from other people and have created a piece combining other people’s research. For image use, they follow the criteria by citing the image they use back to the original source and give a description. Verifiability is in play here because we are able to check the sources being used to represent the song in order to make sure that they are credible. The article does a pretty decent job at meeting the criteria that is a Wikipedia article. It could still use some work, but it does stand pretty solid at current time.