User:Tshaffer92/Sandbox

Articles of interest
Port of Los Angeles

Honda Point Disaster

American President Lines

Categories
1932 Summer Olympic Venues

Government of Los Angeles, California

Olympic Sailing Venues

Ports and Harbors of California

Transportation in Los Angeles, California

WikiProjects
WikiProject California/Southern California task force

WikiProject Ports

American President Lines
During the first half of 2012, American President Lines (APL) is going to be cutting their U.S. fleet of container chassis. APL announced that the company will be terminating its chassis service which has long been provided to haul merchant shipping products to and from port. Originally, APL declined to cut its chassis service in order to retain a favorable customer service image while most other shipping companies terminated the chassis service to save money. APL has since decided that it can no longer remain a full-service carrier. As the year 2012 progresses, APL will begin phasing out their chassis service in order to reduce their cost of business and help transport freight more efficiently. By 2014, APL will have completed their divestiture by turning their chassis services over to a specialized ground shipping company in ports nationwide.

American President Lines also introduced another change in their shipping company for the year 2012. Beginning March 1, APL seeks to implement their increase in shipping costs on shipments from Asia to Europe. This will make APL the latest company in a line of major shipping companies that have begun raising prices in these shipping lanes. The proposed rate increases have ranged between $700 and $800 and are said to help secure fluctuating shipping costs in the struggling trade lanes.

Leach, P. T. (2012, Feb 10). APL to stop providing chassis at ports. Journal of Commerce, pp. n/a. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/920992433?accountid=10353

APL adds $750 to asia-europe rates. (2012, Feb 13). Journal of Commerce, pp. n/a. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/921286071?accountid=10353

RA4: Evaluate a Wikipedia Article
After reading both the Wikipedia article "Shipworm" and the Oxford Encyclopedia entry on shipworms, I did not find any pieces of information that disagreed with each other. The information present in the Wikipedia article on shipworms matched the information that was present in the Oxford Encyclopedia of Maritime History. Surprisingly, the sources both covered the same information when it came to shipworms. While neither source offered more information than the other, each source went further in depth than the other in certain areas about the shipworm. For instance, Wikipedia goes further in depth as to how shipworms provided engineering inspiration for the Thames Tunnel while the Oxford Encyclopedia goes further in greater detail about the shipworms anatomy. Despite this, both entries seem to offer the same overall amount of information. Essentially, the same type of information is offered in both entries, but, some topics are covered in greater detail in each entry.

According to the standards outlined in “Wikipedia: Identifying reliable sources,” the sources in the Wikipedia article “Shipworm” held up surprisingly well. All of the sources that could be located online were secondary sources and composed by credible source. Wikipedia stresses that the sources used for the composition of a Wikipedia article are to be from a credible book source or from an outlet that is mainstream or reviewed frequently. It is also stressed that sources are not self-published, reviewed, or edited. The sources in the “shipworm” article were not self-published and they all came from reliable outlets.

As for the readability and overall composition of this Wikipedia article, the stereotype that Wikipedia articles are a tough read was proven wrong. The “Shipworm” article was not exemplary in its writing style, but, for the most part, was well-written. The article was broken down into sections with appropriate headings that split up the information and made it easier to digest. For instance, the article began with a short overview and then followed with “Description,” “Engineering Inspiration,” “Literature,” “Culinary Delicacy,” and “Genera.” While it could be argued that the article has room for better organization, this article is organized in a satisfactory manner. There also was not any glaring spelling or grammar mistakes present in this article. The overall writing style of the article was indeed basic from the standpoint of an encyclopedia, but in this case it did not detract from the focus of the article. The article was composed in a matter that allowed the reader to remain focused on the subject of the article without trying to digest a complex writing style

All in all, the Wikipedia article on shipworms was easily comparable to the Oxford Encyclopedia’s article on shipworms. Both articles provided nearly the same amount and type of information on the subject. The Wikipedia article provided reliable references for the information it presented and also delivered it in a manner that was clear and easy to read. Because of this, the Wikipedia article “Shipworm” can stand next to other encyclopedia entries.

Draft Final Article
User:Tshaffer/Tshaffer92Draft