Wikipedia:External peer review/PCPRO154

PC Pro (June 2007)

Source: PC Pro
Date: June 2007
Issue: 154 (August 2007), pages 134 & 135
Title: Wikipedia Uncovered: Wikipedia vs. The Old Guard
URL: http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/119640/wikipedia-vs-the-old-guard.html

A comparison between Wikipedia, Encarta and Britannica

Findings

Otto von Bismarck - Britannica - Encarta

Overview: The Wikipedia article is poorly written in places and not as comprehensive as Britannica. Encarta "lacks the detail offered in the Wiki piece".

Quotes:

"Largely sound on the facts"
"a marked deterioration towards the end"
"leaves out the prominent theme of the Bismarck cult that flowered after his departure from office"

Franco-Prussian War - Britannica (Franco-German War) - Encarta

Overview: Wikipedia article judged best. Encarta is "extremely superficial"; Britannica is "polished and factually correct although ... less richly detailed".

Quotes:

"clearer" and "more elegant" [writing than Otto Von Bismarck]
a few recent studies are missing from the bibliography
Military and technical details are ... well handled

Atherosclerosis - Britannica - Encarta (Circulatory System)

Overview: Wikipedia "performs well", Britannica "fares poorly", and Encarta "earns the Dunce's Cap".

Quotes:

of more benefit to the serious student than its Encarta and Britannica equivalents
"the layman may find too much information"

Plate tectonics - Britannica - Encarta

Overview: Wikipedia article broadly accurate, but messy. Britannica's entry "contained an error in its opening paragraph", "too long for most people's needs", and "reminded me of one of my worst lectures at university". Encarta "clearly written by an expert" and "the only one to display enthusiasm for the subject".

Quotes:

good for the bare facts but didn't read particularly well
"slightly messy description of outer Earth layering, which reappears elsewhere in the text, suggesting a lack of decent editing"

Response

None yet. violet/riga (t) 15:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With plate tectonics being a featured article I think we need to at least review the issues raised here. violet/riga (t) 16:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC) It's changed a lot since this version. Over 800 edits.LeadSongDog (talk) 00:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]