The article found from the library’s website is called, “Storm surge switches the grid to “off” and for currency the date of the article is January 12, 2012 that was when the information was published. The information has not be revised or updated and the older sources work as well and yes, the links are functional. The next part for relevance is that the information does relate to my topic but does not answer my question and the intended audience is for anyone who is interested in this topic. The information is not too elementary but needs to be advanced some more to know more about the information and yes, I did look at a variety of sources (3 articles) before determining this one I was going to use that was closest to my topic. I would be more comfortable citing this source in my research paper if it was closer to the date of when my topic about “U.S. Energy Grid” went on.
Authority is
that the article is by Russell, Pam Radtke and the source is ENR: Engineering
News-Record and I am not sure about the author’s credentials or organizational
affiliations but the author is qualified to write on the topic. There is no
contact information and the URL does not reveal anything about the author or
source. For accuracy, the information comes from ENR: Engineering News-Record
and the information are supported by evidence. The information has not been
reviewed or refereed and yes, I can verify any of the information in the other
source. The language or tone does seem unbiased but does have emotion like sadness
and anger of what happened and there is no spelling, grammar or typographical
errors in this information. For purpose the purpose of the information is to
inform about what the storm called, “Sandy” caused to the energy grid and the
author makes his intentions clear. The information is both fact and opinion and
the point of view appears objective, there are political and cultural biases.
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-10-11/opinions/35499513_1_wind-tax-credit-wind-turbines-megawatts-of-wind-generation
The article found form Google is called, “Why the
U.S. needs a networked energy grid” and for currency the date the information
was published is October 11, 2012. The information has not been revised or updated
and the older sources work for this topic and there are no links for this
topic. For relevance the information does relate to my topic and the intended
audience is for people who know about the networked energy grid, the
information is advanced for my needs and I have looked at 2 sources before
determining this is the one I was going to use. I would not be comfortable
citing this source in my research paper because it would need to be less
advanced for my paper. For authority, the topic is by C. Boyden Gray and I am
not sure about the author’s credentials or organizational affiliations, the
author is qualified to write on this topic. There is no contact information and the URL does not reveal anything about the author or source. As for accuracy, the topic does not say where the information comes from and the information is not supported by evidence. The information has been reviewed and I can verify the information from personal knowledge, the language or tone seem unbiased and free of emotion and there is no spelling, grammar or typographical errors. For purpose, the information’s purpose was to inform about the wind-production tax credit and the kilowatt-hours and the author does make his intention and purpose clear. The information is fact, the point of view appears objective and there are political and ideological biases.
The credibility of these two sources is different
from each other based on my analysis the first source is credible because it is
more related to my topic then the second source. The first source is about how
the huge storm, Sandy which destroyed a great part of the energy grid and
brought light to changing the way the energy grid. Is for the future if another
disaster happens and my topic is about how the transformers malfunctioned and a
blackout happened everywhere because of the grid system being old so they are
planning on making a smart gird to be able to be strong. The second source is
about pricing that is being used for something other than for fixing the grid
and wanting more “feel-good” energy policy like wind turbines. Which is close
but not what I am looking for credible for my topic since my does say about a
smart grid, it does not say a lot about money wise and I am more interested
about how they plan on putting the new grid in, I am not looking for how much
money it will take to make this smart grid happen.
I appreciate that you've answered each question from the CRAAP analysis. I do, however, have a few clarification questions to ask that should help you better evaluate future sources.
ReplyDeleteFor both sources you say that older sources work well for you topic. Can you explain your reason here? Again, in both articles you indicate that you are unsure about the author's and publication's credentials. What might a simple Google search reveal about either the author or the publication? Many writers have public bios that you can find online and most publications have websites with "About Us" sections that can provide the information you need to answer those questions.
You write that the point of view is objective (neutral) but that political bias is involved. Most of the time bias and objectivity do not correspond with each other. In other words if an idea is objective it does not take a political stance. Having that clarification, how might you reevaluate the article?
Finally, remember that most writers have a specific audience in mind when they write. While it may be true that many people could be interested in the topic, who do you think the writer is writing to? How might the purpose and content of the article help you determine the audience the writer has in mind?