User:Chrispy824/sandbox

Articles of Interest
RMS Titanic Alternative Theories

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_America_%281940%29

MSC

Military Sealift Command
The most solid article I found on MSC and what they are doing now was the first one in the list of citations. It talks about the need for a forward deployed amphibious floating platform to deploy smaller boats and helicopters from. It then goes on to explain how because of the current budget situation MSC is converting an old Navy vessel into the ship desired until a ship built strictly for this purpose can be built. I would assume by what the article says and the way it is worded that a design for a ship for this purpose has already been purposed to Navy and MSC brass. This idea also proves vital not only to the navy as a patrol boat base. But also as a sustained special operations support platform. In this I mean that it could stand on station for weeks and/or months. To resupply and support special operations forces in the field. This kind of multi-role and multi-mission platform has many posibilitys for the navy and for any other branch of the military service that needs a marine based platform to operate from.

Fabey, M. (2012, February 2). Amphib Ship Evolution Is Sign Of Things To Come. Aerospace Daily & Defense Report. 241(21), 1.

Roald Amundsen Wiki article Evaluation

My Wikipedia article on Roald Amundsen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roald_Amundsen ). While I found that both Wikipedia and the Encyclopedia both had about the same information. I saw that the Oxford Encyclopedia of Maritime History had the same information for the most part that Wikipedia. I saw that the delivery of the information through the encyclopedia was a lot better than the way it was presented in Wikipedia. Wikipedia was better with the pictures of Amundsen and ships and equipment used on his expiditions. There was a few area's were Wikipedia had more information about things in relation to little stuff that happened on some of the expiditions. The source's used by the Wikipedia article on Roald Amundsen were good source's in terms of the information given to the reader. I find in looking up the articles using library supplied databases to find the full original article online. When I checked the sources against Wikipedia's Identifying Reliable Source's article page I found all the source's to be reliable. As a side note I found that having read some of the listed sources I will observe that there are individual discrepency's between some of the source's that Wikipedia lists. This article wasn't a featured article it carried an article rating of C class. The writing style and readability of this article was about what I would expect from most Wikipedia articles of this rating. The readability was better than the Oxford Encyclopedia's readability, because for the most part the encyclopedia was a lot more concise in its wording to explain Roald Amundsen's life in a shorter amount of words and paper. Which is why I think that the encyclopedia doesn't read as well as Wikipedia does at a quick glance kind of judgment and even at a more long term read through the articles. I found that the actual writing style of the Encyclopedia seemed a lot better than that of Wikipedia. Having said this because the encyclopedia writers had less space to work with than with Wikipedia were the space is essentially endless. In the amount of space used by both articles I think that the one with a smaller space is a much shorter clearer picture of the information that needs to be conveyed to the reader. This is what makes the picture clearer in the smaller space. The article with a larger amount of space has more room for factual and grammatical error. Which could possibly throw a twist in the amount of accuracy conveyed in facts brought across in said article. There in terms of both articles looked at the editors and writers that also affect the readability and writing style.

Final Draft Article
User:Chrispy824/ChrispyDraft