Page:EPIC Oxford report.pdf/40

 Morales' governance, I would have to consult the first piece [Wikipedia] since this is absent in the second." (Reviewer 2 – academic)

For a number of academics, the impression of the article as a cohesive piece of writing appeared to be valued at least as much as the extent of subject matter, as can be seen in this comment on the pair of articles on Energia Renovable:


 * "The first artcilearticle [sic] [Wikipedia] is more suitable and better descriptive of the subject matter. However, article 2 (Enciclonet) is half its size and can be read more quickly, which poses distinct advantages. Both are well written and accurate." (Reviewer 1 – Professor)

Even when lack of comprehensiveness (specifically here, lack of currency) is acknowledged as undermining its usefulness, the overall feel of an article still earns it some degree of approval, even if not actually rendering it preferable to the article that is more up to date:


 * "The first article [Wikipedia] had more information, but the second [Mawsoah] was much more eloquent." (Reviewer 1 – research student – on articles on Egypt)

By the same measure, when one article abandoned any attempt at providing an engaging narrative, it was viewed quite negatively:


 * "There is not a lot of writing in this article [Wikipedia]; mostly there are series of factual information in bullet point format." (Reviewer 2 – academic – Primary Education)

Criticisms of this kind were made about both Wikipedia and non-Wikipedia articles, and are quoted here in order to capture the impression emerging from the data that academics – while of course strongly concerned with accuracy, currency and comprehensiveness (also demonstrated in the quantitative results) – also judge articles of this kind for their capacity to bring a topic alive to the non-expert or casual reader. This theme runs through the comments from all three reviewers on the pair of articles about Polonomia:


 * "The second article [Wikipedia] is much clearer and concise, though it could need some additional information. The first article [Enciclonet], on the other hand, lacks focus and is rather inconsistent." (Reviewer 3 – academic)
 * "The first article is too confusing, poorly written and makes emphasis on one aspect of the theory. The second one is better written, gives a good overview, but does not cover in depth any topic. The scope of the first is larger but the execution is very poor. The quality of the second is higher, but it is too short." (Reviewer 2 – postdoc)

Certain tendencies, which to some extent crossed both language and disciplinary boundaries, are apparent here. Concision (which above all seems to have been taken to mean something along the lines of getting straight to the point) is valued a great deal by many reviewers (especially with respect to scientific articles) as is good writing – in terms of having a clear and informative tone of voice throughout:

 "Article 1 [Enciclonet] goes deeper than the article 2 [Wikipedia]. In particular, notions of polynomial in higher algebraic settings are discussed and more theoretical  40