User:AARWON/Sandbox

Articles of Interest
Marine Propulsion

User sandbox

Princess Cruises

Categories
Marine Propulsion

WikiProjects
Wikiproject Engineering

Wikiproject Technology

Wikiproject Ships

RA3
The article found below is one of many written recently in regards to the tragedy that took place on the cruise ship Costa Concordia. What separates this one is that Mr. Noone tries to discover the cost of the disaster and the long term effect. He gathers information from his sources as the to the actual cost, ranging from $500 million USD up to $1 billion USD. In addition the time it will take to pay off claims and recovery & salvaging some of the equipment on board.

The list includes an impressively large fitness center, several luxurious Jacuzzi s, lots of bars and of course the engines themselves. One final statistic is the parenting company of the ship and cruise line, Princess Cruises, operates about half of the functioning cruise lines in the current market.

Noone, R. (January 19, 2012). Concordia insurance claims to Costa billion - Voyage to disaster -. In The Daily Telegraph (Australia). Retrieved March 2, 2012, from http://198.189.53.33:2052/lnacui2api/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T14096825943&format=GNBFI&sort=BOOLEAN&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T14096825947&cisb=22_T14096825946&treeMax=true&treeWidth=471&selRCNodeID=60&nodeStateId=411en_US,1,17&docsInCategory=66&csi=244786&docNo=6. Via LexisNexis.

This particular article details and lists the vast amenities found aboard a modern cruise ship. Things ranging from on board skating & ice rinks, rock climbing wall, mini-golf course and golf simulator as well as sports courts and swimming pools to accommodations for 3,000+ guests. These cruise ships, when seen in person is somewhat surreal in terms of shear size and scale.

Mr Crouch is eagerly anticipating its arrival in Australia as such an event is unprecedented in its long maritime history. It brings more competition to the local market therefore increasing the pricing as well. Lastly this can only be good for the local economies in which the port visits, ensuring that thousands of passengers flooding the streets with tourist money and marketing.

CROUCH, B. (June 19, 2011). Behemoth of the seas due to dock - CRUISE AUSTRALIA - - Ship shape - A SPECIAL CRUISING GUIDE -. In Sunday Telegraph. Retrieved March 2, 2012, from http://198.189.53.33:2052/lnacui2api/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T14096825943&format=GNBFI&sort=BOOLEAN&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T14096825947&cisb=22_T14096825946&treeMax=true&treeWidth=471&selRCNodeID=60&nodeStateId=411en_US,1,17&docsInCategory=. Via LexisNeis

RA4
A.)	The accuracy and comprehensiveness of both the Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutiny) and the Oxford Encyclopedia of Maritime History were similar and contrasting. Both give a brief and acceptable introduction in the theory of mutiny however, Wikipedia goes more in depth about the current law(s) and situation in regards to the United States and United Kingdom. This may be because those countries possess the greatest navies ever known, respectively. The Oxford Encyclopedia of Maritime History omits this and that is perfectly fine. The Encyclopedia cannot be readily edited and updated as Wikipedia can. 	One of several things that the Oxford Encyclopedia of Maritime History has over Wikipedia are the pictures. A picture is worth a thousand words and the picture included in the Mutiny article is no different. It depicts mutiny and includes a brief introduction into the picture or painting. In terms of accuracy, both sources were correct if not identical. Just served in different ways; and like food, it’s all about the consumer’s need and personality. I could not find any specific piece of information that contradicted one another. One thing I did enjoy and find convenient are the examples they both provide. Wikipedia provides significant mutinies in history from the 16th century to as recent as 2009. And while the Oxford Encyclopedia of Maritime History also provides examples they simply cannot list as many examples due to space allotted and the lack of access. By that I mean the ability to update and edit at the click of a mouse or strokes of the keyboard. I did find that the examples offered by the Oxford Encyclopedia of Maritime History were much more detailed and that was extremely useful.

B.)	Evaluating the quality and reliability of sources by Wikipedia I was surprised by how few there were, a grand total of five. Additionally, three of the five links were dead. By that I mean failed to work or take me anywhere. One of the two that did work was from an actual encyclopedia and the other from a book. The Oxford Encyclopedia of Maritime History source list was far more detailed and useful. They used sources from books and actual trials from mutinies. The list is long and thorough and I am very happy with it.

C.) 	In terms of readability/writing style/organization the Oxford Encyclopedia of Maritime History had the advantage in the first two of three. Just the sheer amount of information provided was overwhelming and in terms of either having not enough information or too much, I prefer the latter. Additionally the writing style is not as simple and generic as Wikipedia’s and therefore delvers the information in a fashion where it is more easily retained and comprehended. However in regards to organization, Wikipedia had the upper hand. That is to be expected simply because it is an online source and it is much easier to click a link and be taken to where you want instead of looking for pages and words and what not. A function I use frequently is “Crtl + F” to use the find function to find certain key words or even sentences.

Over the course of this course my thoughts of Wikipedia has dropped considerably. I will still use it simply because of the ease of access but in terms of using it as a serious source would be naïve. Wikipedia provides a good brief introduction to your topic but it is simply not as good as text on paper, like books, encyclopedia, newspapers and or journals. Neither Wikipedia or Encyclopedia of Maritime History had false or unreliable information but the two are just on different levels in terms of comprehensiveness, style and reliability.