Comparing Articles from Wikipedia and Gale Virtual Reference Database

Comparing Articles from Wikipedia and Gale Virtual Reference Database

Table of Contents

Order ID# 45178248544XXTG457	Plagiarism Level: 0-0.5%	Writer Classification: PhD competent
Style: APA/MLA/Harvard/Chicago	Delivery: Minimum 3 Hours	Revision: Permitted
Sources: 4-6	Course Level: Masters/University College	Guarantee Status: 96-99%

Instructions

Comparing Articles from Wikipedia and Gale Virtual Reference Database

 

Find two articles on your proposed topic (or what you’re considering at this point), one on Wikipedia and the other on the database Gale Virtual Reference Library.  Read both articles carefully and note the differences in the scope, style, tone, information, audience, and citations provided.

Your comparison should cover each reference article and explain what’s similar and different about them.  It should introduce them both and argue which you think is more accurate and informative and state why.  If certain parts of one article are particularly interesting or useful but it’s generally not the better of the two, don’t hesitate to say so.

Process:  read both articles and annotate them (you can do so with the “Hypothesis” plug-in or by printing them out).  You might use a Venn diagram, chart, or another visual representation of the information you are comparing.

Your comparison will be evaluated on the clear and accurate representation of each article, the introduction to your topic and the sources, your argument for why one is better or more useful than the other (or you could argue they serve different rhetorical purposes), and the conclusion of your analysis.

Note that when you’re covering an article from Gale Virtual Reference it’s coming from a reference source indexed on this database. I.e., you won’t name Gale Virtual Reference as a source, it will be one like The Encyclopedia of Business Ethics and Society or Folklore: An Encyclopedia of Beliefs, Customs, Tales, Music, and Art, etc.

Length:  300-400 words

APA or MLA style.
Include a References page / section.

*Also include a list of keywords and terms you will use in your research for this project.

How to cite Wikipeida in APA (from OWL):

Wikipedia Article

APA 7 treats Wikipedia articles as special instances of entries in reference works. Thus, there are a few differences between reference entries for pages on Wikipedia and those for generic webpages.

Title of article. (Year, Month Date). In Wikipedia. URL of archived version of page

Quantum mechanics. (2019, November 19). In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quantum_mechanics&oldid=948476810

Wikipedia articles often update frequently. For this reason, the date refers to the date that the cited version of the page was published. Note also that the manual recommends linking to the archived version of the page, rather than the current version of the page on the site, since the latter can change over time. Access the archived version by clicking “View History,” then clicking the date/timestamp of the version you’d like to cite

 

RUBRIC
Excellent Quality 95-100%	Introduction 45-41 points The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.		Literature Support 91-84  points The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.			Methodology 58-53 points Content is well-organized with headings for each slide and bulleted lists to group related material as needed. Use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. to enhance readability and presentation content is excellent. Length requirements of 10 slides/pages or less is met.
Average Score 50-85%	40-38 points More depth/detail for the background and significance is needed, or the research detail is not clear. No search history information is provided.		83-76  points Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is little integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are included. Summary of information presented is included. Conclusion may not contain a biblical integration.			52-49  points Content is somewhat organized, but no structure is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. is occasionally detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met.
Poor Quality 0-45%	37-1 points The background and/or significance are missing. No search history information is provided.		75-1 points Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is no integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are not included in the summary of information presented. Conclusion does not contain a biblical integration.			48-1 points There is no clear or logical organizational structure. No logical sequence is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects etc. is often detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met
You Can Also Place the Order at www.perfectacademic.com/orders/ordernow or www.crucialessay.com/orders/ordernow

Comparing Articles from Wikipedia and Gale Virtual Reference Database

PLACE THE ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET A PERFECT SCORE!!!