- The article is titled "Check Out What Whales Are Doing With CCL", but it doesn't explain what whales are or why they are relevant for the readers
- The article starts with an image that has nothing to do with the topic, it's just a random picture of some stocks
- The article uses vague terms like "unusual options activity", "whales", "biggest options spotted" without defining them or providing any evidence or sources
- The article repeats the same information over and over again, such as the names of the puts and calls, the strike prices, the volume and open interest, the trade types, the sentiment, the expiration dates, the ask and bid prices, the total trade price, etc. This is redundant and boring for the readers
- The article doesn't provide any analysis or insight into the implications of the options activity, it just presents the data without any context or explanation
- The article abruptly switches to a market overview of Carnival, without any transition or connection to the previous section
- The article uses outdated information, such as the earnings announcement expected in 50 days, which is more than a year ago
- The article cites only three analysts, without providing any details or reasons for their ratings or price targets, or any comparison or contrast between them
- The article ends with a blatant advertisement for Benzinga Pro, which is irrelevant and annoying for the readers
### Final answer: AI's article is poorly written, lacks credibility, clarity, and coherence. It is not a good example of how to write a review of options data.