User:RM395/Course/Encyclopedia comparisons/Youngpenn

I choose to do this assignment about the Fiddle I used a 1911 version of the Encyclopedia Britannica that was at the Library and the Fiddle article (http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Fiddle).

Comparison

The Wikipedia article had a satisfactory in-depth history of the Fiddle and it also had a fairly limited summery of the Etymology. The thing that the Wikipedia article had the most of was descriptions of how the fiddle was played in particular the Scottish and Balkan method. It also had a very long list of links to examples of the different styles of playing the Fiddle. It had styles from every part of the world giving a in depth look of how the fiddle is used in different cultures.

The Encyclopedia Britannica article had a much more in depth history section than the Wikipedia article had. It also had a much more detailed Entomology which cited specific quotes from history about fiddles. The one thing that it had that the Wikipedia article did not have was descriptions of the different forms of the fiddle. It describes the earliest fiddles and goes into detail about how it changed to its current form.

Judgement

Both articles had strong points and weak points. The Wikipedia lacked in history but made up for it with its extensive sections on playing methods and styles which the Britannica article did not go into. The Britannica article did however have a more in depth history of the Fiddle.

I find it very hard to say which one is better since if you were looking up history about the Fiddle I would suggest Britannica but if you were looking up information on the playing styles of the fiddle I would suggest the Wikipedia page. In the end I would have to go with the Wikipedia page since its more up to date and is more complete. Even though it lacks the in depth history it goes into the playing styles which is crucial information when describing a instrument. --Youngpenn (talk) 15:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)