Part I
In comparing the biographies of Marshall McLuhan and Michelle Citron, I
noticed very clear differences. In McLuhan's biography, there was more
information. about McLuhan himself, as well as his published works.
After the brief biography, his life is then categorized by his books,
when they were published, and what they were about. The page was a complete timeline of information from his birth to his death, and it covered the main points and achievements of McLuhan's life. In contrast, Michelle Citron's page was much shorter, and not complete. Citron's biography was brief, her "early years" section only two lines, and her "career" section only two paragraphs. While there was key information in these paragraphs, I feel that there could definitely be more to them. The rest of her page is separated into various graphs, listing her filmography--only a partial list-- and section on her published books. There was also no picture, so I don't even know what she looks like. The page feels incomplete. There must be more than two sentences worth about her early years, there must be more information about her career. When compared to McLuhan's page, Citron's falls very short, offering meager amounts of information where there could be more.
When comparing a Wikipedia article to a Stanford Encyclopedia article, I found myself in a similar situation to when comparing Citron and McLuhan. While the the Wiki article has good information about Sedgwick--his life, works, and small facts about him-- The Stanford article is much more in depth. The stanford article covers his life, his religious upbringing and philosophies, as well as his political views, workings, and more. Each section is long, containing multiple paragraphs about various parts of his life and work.
Part II
The featured article I chose, about the beagle, is very long, providing information of the history, varieties, and descriptions of the dog as a breed. When comparing it to the FA criteria, it falls well within the boundaries. The article is from a neutral point of view, offering no opinions or original research. The history seems well researched, going back to the 18th century. The information is categorized in a clear manner, and there is no awkward jumping from one time to another. The lead is clear, concise and well written, the article has pictures and multiple hyper links to other pages, and summarizes clearly, without unnecessary tangents. Overall I think the article is complete, follows the FA criteria to a T, and is well written.
