User:E.C.McHenry/sandbox

Cadet E. McHenry (talk) 21:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Articles of Interest

 * North River Steamboat
 * Citations Needed
 * Five Iron Frenzy
 * Reese Roper
 * Bibby Line

Categories

 * 1800s Ships
 * Paddle Steamers
 * Steamboats of the Hudson River

WikiProjects

 * Ships

Summary of Bibby Line News
In 2007, Bibby Line Group Ltd. bought a 51% share in Costcutter, a chain of retail stores in the UK. As of November 14, 2011, Bibby Line Group Ltd. purchased the remainder of the company as part of a plan to expand from primarily shipping endevours into the retail market.


 * Webb, S. (November 15, 2011 Tuesday 11:42 AM GMT ). UK: Bibby Line acquires Costcutter. just-food global news, Retrieved from http://198.189.53.33:2052/hottopics/lnacademic
 * (November 14, 2011 Monday ). Costcutter acquired by Bibby Line Group. Retail Week, Retrieved from http://198.189.53.33:2052/hottopics/lnacademic
 * (November 17, 2011 Thursday ). Costcutter deal signed. York Press, Retrieved from http://198.189.53.33:2052/hottopics/lnacademic

Research Assignment Four
The Wikipedia article HMS Endeavour and the Oxford Encyclopedia of Maritime History (OEMH) article Endeavour, reveal a sharp contrast between the accuracy of the two sources. The Wikipedia article goes into great detail about the construction, refitting, life, and demise of the ship Endeavour. The OEMH article, however, focuses primarily on the ship’s use in James Cook’s first expedition to the South Pacific. It is striking that the entirety of the OEMH article—a mere three paragraphs—is covered in the introduction of the Wikipedia article. Where the OEMH article stops, the Wikipedia article goes on to explain the full construction details, refit details, voyage, and later service.

Perhaps the most shocking difference between the two articles is the apparent inaccuracy of the OEMH article. There were two errors which caught my eye. First, the OEMH article claims that Cook returned to England on the 13th of July, 1771, but the Wikipedia article claims that Cook returned to England on the 12th of July. The other error was perhaps from a lack of information more than incorrectness. The OEMH article claims that “With only one ship, and without the loss of a single man from scurvy, Cook had put five thousand miles of coastline on the maps.” While it may be true that no men died of scurvy, the Wikipedia article mentions that thirty crewmembers died of various diseases after they left Batavia on the voyage home.

At first glance, this bit of missing information could be due to a lack of proper sources used for the OEMH article, which has only four sources, compared to Wikipedia’s ten sources. However, two strong sources are shared between the two articles, and the error is more likely due to a lack of in-depth research than a lack of information.

The sources used in the Wikipedia article fit well into Wikipedia’s policy of reliable sources. Many of these sources are secondary, that is, they provide an analysis and summary of information from original journals and records. Also, many of these sources were published through reputable institutions such as University Press and National Maritime Museums.

The writing style and organization of both the Wikipedia article and the OEMH article reflect the superior nature of their sources. Both articles are organized chronologically. Both have a clear and concise—although certainly not elegant—writing style. And, it is easy to find important information in either article.

Overall, I would rate the Wikipedia article higher in quality. It seems to be more fleshed-out, more accurate, and better researched.

Draft Final Article
Finall Project Draft