Martin Robbins' article was pretty amusing to read. I did see some resemblance between Robbins' article and other articles that I have read from my past years. It didn't really resemble any of my articles that I chose for my paper. But I thought for sure that it would have been more similar to my popular article ("How Earthquakes Work") and less like my scholarly one ("Mapping Tectonic Stress Using Earthquakes"). My popular article was more in depth with the information that it gave. And it gave it in a way where it was easy to understand. I mean my popular article did not fluff the ideas of the topic. The tone of "How Earthquakes Work" seem pretty scholarly, because it didn't get off topic and it was straightforward. It differs from "Mapping Tectonic Stress Using Earthquakes" through it's terminology and less complicated examples. The main thing that I have notice between my popular article and the stereotypical layout were the pictures. Robbins wrote "At this point I will include a picture, because our search engine optimization experts have determined that humans are incapable of reading more than 400 words without one", I found it hilarious because it definitely is common for many popular articles to do that. My popular article had, at most, 400 words before every picture or video. But the pictures did help me visualize the devastation that an earthquake can cause. Especially the videos, they give the audience a visual of what the article is explaining.
And there was hardly any citing or quoting within "How Earthquakes Work". They reach their intended audience through a simplification words and short breaks in between every few sentences. It is clear that the audience that the author was aiming for were those who needed quick information on earthquakes, and for those who have an interest and want to know the gist of earthquakes. Overall, I do agree with Robbins statement about the layout of popular articles.
No comments:
Post a Comment