Comparing Articles from Different Databases

December 14, 2022

Comparing Articles from Different Databases

Order Number	636738393092
Type of Project	ESSAY
Writer Level	PHD VERIFIED
Format	APA
Academic Sources	10
Page Count	3-12 PAGES

Instructions/Descriptions

Comparing Articles from Different Databases

Comparing, Articles, Different, Databases

[Order Now]

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 Wikipedia 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

[Order Now]

Comparing Articles from Different Databases

RUBRIC

Excellent Quality

95-100%

Introduction

45-41 points

The context and relevance of the issue, as well as a clear description of the study aim, are presented. The history of searches is discussed.

Literature Support

91-84 points

The context and relevance of the issue, as well as a clear description of the study aim, are presented. The history of searches is discussed.

Methodology

58-53 points

With titles for each slide as well as bulleted sections to group relevant information as required, the content is well-organized. Excellent use of typeface, color, images, effects, and so on to improve readability and presenting content. The minimum length criterion of 10 slides/pages is reached.

Average Score

50-85%

40-38 points

More depth/information is required for the context and importance, otherwise the study detail will be unclear. There is no search history information supplied.

83-76 points

There is a review of important theoretical literature, however there is limited integration of research into problem-related ideas. The review is just partly focused and arranged. There is research that both supports and opposes. A summary of the material given is provided. The conclusion may or may not include a biblical integration.

52-49 points

The content is somewhat ordered, but there is no discernible organization. The use of typeface, color, graphics, effects, and so on may sometimes distract from the presenting substance. It is possible that the length criteria will not be reached.

Poor Quality

0-45%

37-1 points

The context and/or importance are lacking. There is no search history information supplied.

75-1 points

There has been an examination of relevant theoretical literature, but still no research concerning problem-related concepts has been synthesized. The review is just somewhat focused and organized. The provided overview of content does not include any supporting or opposing research. The conclusion has no scriptural references.

48-1 points

There is no logical or apparent organizational structure. There is no discernible logical sequence. The use of typeface, color, graphics, effects, and so on often detracts from the presenting substance. It is possible that the length criteria will not be reached.