Evaluation of General Sources

Source 1: "UC's Doctoral Student's Research Digs Deep into the Fracking Controversy"

• URL: This article comes from the University of Cincinnati and as such has the .edu extension. This means the information contained in the article comes from an academic source and is credible.
• Author: The author for the article is Dawn Fuller. Within the article an email and phone number are provided, giving her some transparency. After a search of her name it was found that she is a public information author for the University of Cincinnati. The work she is describing is authored by a doctoral student who, based on her education and field of study, is qualified in this field.
• Last Updated: The page was last updated on April 11, 2011. This information is fairly update, but the information provided is as relevant today as it was then. There are no links on the page.
• Purpose: The purpose of this article is to inform the reader. It is informing the public of the research being performed in the subject area.
• Graphics: The only graphic on the page is a photo of the student that the article describes. It is simply showing the subject of the article.
• Position on Subject: The position described is fairly objective. Since it is an evaluation of the controversy it attempts to not take sides on the subject. Rather it describes the opposing ideologies that are fueling the controversy.
• Links: There are no links present in the article.

Source 2: "'Fracking' controversy and communication: Using national survey data to understand public perceptions of hydraulic fracturing"

URL: The URL for this article has the .com extension. However, it is from sciencedirect.com which is a reputable source for scholarly articles.
Author: This article is authored by six different people. Each of them is a scholar associated with a prominent university. As such they each are credible. The article also comes from a peer-reviewed journal, which further proves its credibility.
Last Updated: The article was last updated November 15, 2013. This information is less than two years old, so the information is still relevant. There are various links for each of the sources used. They do not take you to the sources directly, but provide additional information about each source.
Purpose: The text's purpose is to inform the reader about the controversy. The author's attempt to characterize the opposing view points that are fueling the "fracking" controversy.
Graphics: The article contains no graphics.
Position on Subject: The source does not take a stand on the controversy itself. The purpose is the document the opposing view points rather than picking a side.
Links: The source provides a large number of sources from which it has drawn evidence from. These sources all seem to be reputable and provide multiple pathways for further inquiry.