2nd blog post response

Shakespeare Second Blog Post

Wikipedia is known universally throughout the education world to have unreliable or misleading information.  Personally I believe that wikipedia is a great place to find reliable information but, it should not be referenced directly to wikipedia.  Instead the information should be referenced to the list of references at the bottom on any wikipedia page respectively.   When I brought up King henry IV part 1  on wikipedia’s page I found no inaccurate information on the main character’s of the play.  I did however find some misleading information.

Wikipedia states that the character of King Henry the Fourth was based on the historical king of England, was referred to as “bolingbroke (sometimes spelt Bullingbrook)” Both of these statements are true however neither show any character development.  Wikipedia also states that the king is referred to as “Lancaster” by Glendower however Glendower only does this once in the play. 1

Another problem that is misleading is that Wikipedia doesn’t differentiate any of the different characters’s importance.  One who is reading the page would have no idea that the main characters are Prince Harry, King Henry and Falstaff.2   Overall I find that the information on Wikipedia’s page is more or less accurate, however the quality of information could be improved greatly.  In fact their whole character portion of the page could be improved by creating a small character analysis section of main characters.

Finally,  I would just like to point out that not a single reference is to be found in the entire character section of the wikipedia page.  Although the information is mainly true I had to research it and make sure myself that it was all valid.  Wikipedia could improve their site by adding more references, thus verifying the legitimately of the information.

References
1.http://shakespeare.mit.edu/1henryiv/full.html
2.http://www.sparknotes.com/shakespeare/henry4pt1/canalysis.html
3.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_IV,_Part_1