I have two sources that are going to be very reliable in my research for this blog.
The first source is from Science Daily, http://www.sciencedaily.com. The direct link to this article is, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120702210214.htm. The article title is, Fast Food intake increases risk of diabetes and heart disease in Singapore. As I apply the CRAAP test to this source, I get these results; Currency - 10, Relevance - 10, Authority - 10, Accuracy - 10, Purpose - 10. From this, the article receives a perfect 50 out of 50 because it fits every point in the CRAAP test. This source is great for my blog because it shows research that has been done over a long period of time. I will be able to reference this and it's sources to find quality information about the health of fast food and what it does to the consumer.
My other source is from Harvard. The broad source is, http://www.hsph.harvard.edu. The direct like to this article is, http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/obesity-prevention-source/obesity-causes/food-environment-and-obesity/. The title of this article is, The Toxic food Environment. When I apply the CRAAP test to this source the results are; Currency - 8, Relevance - 10, Authority - 10, Accuracy - 10, Purpose - 10. The total results make this an excellent source with a total score of 48. This article shows the importance of multiple factors in the fast food vs health fight. While it states that fast food is bad for you, it also points out that there are many other factors that make the fast food companies look much worse than they really are.
I'd like to see you explain how you arrive at the CRAAP score for your sources. You don't have to explain every category, but park on one or two of them. As we said in class, aim for at least a triangle of points (good or bad) to give the credibility. I think a perfect 50 might be a little high on this source since there's not an overwhelming depth of information; we're seeing a summary of the studies rather than the studies themselves. The site also relies on advertising, but I don't think it's a bad source either. This site does appear to be an interesting clearinghouse of information that pulls material from a wide range of sources across the web. Actually, when I clicked the link at the bottom, I was taken to the exact same article within the University of Minnesota's website. If I were a student putting this source on a works cited page, I would have cut out the middle man of Science Daily, and I would have instead wanted a university page to appear in my works cited. Though the same information, one context appears slightly more credible than the other.
ReplyDeleteWhat I do love about that first article is the longevity of the study. You're right on track to realize that longitudinal studies that track participants over a long span of time are excellent to use with a topic like the one you're chosen.
For the second source, I'd again have liked to see some detail behind the numerical score. I would have actually given the Harvard source a higher score than your first source. It makes me curious to know what you're seeing differently and to open up some dialogue about that. I saw an article clearly housed within a university, more depth of information with links providing additional information, and an extensive works cited page.
As far as what this source adds to your research, I think you did hit a home run! I like that the source elaborates on some of the other factors that have to be taken into consideration when it comes to this topic. We've talked about the culture that surrounds writing quite a bit so far in class, and this article helps peel back the layers of that culture.