charles matthews wrote:
Hang on, let's be scientific. If EB consolidates articles more than WP, because WP uses hypertext freely to break things up, then 'per article' is not necessarily a good metric. And 'per 10000 words' would say more.
I'd give the authors the benefit of the doubt and assume that the analysis takes things like this into account (at least, I'll assume this until the article is published and we can find out for sure). _Nature_ tends to have fairly rigorous review standards and a high level of article quality, so it's not unlikely that the apparent over-simplifications were introduced by the journalist summarizing the article for _The Age_, which isn't uncommon when reading mainstream-press summaries of scientific articles.
-Mark