PURPOSE

As described in the Writing Commons’ “Summary, Evaluation, and Synthesis”:

When evaluating a source in an assignment such as an annotated bibliography, it is important to evaluate the credibility of that source. There are many elements that work together to make a source reliable or unreliable. In evaluating a source’s credibility, a writer is considering its rhetorical situation. A source evaluation should consider the following questions. While a source evaluation does not need to answer every single one of these questions individually, these questions guide a thorough consideration of the source’s credibility.

Writing a source evaluation will help you not only determine how useful a particular source is for your research but also the purpose and argument made in the source.

APPROACH

Use the at least one of following techniques for creating your source evaluation. Remember that you do not have to answer every question, but you should thoroughly analyze the source and dig beyond the surface level content.

Source Evaluation Checklist

The Writing Commons

1. Author: Who is the author of the text? This person/group’s name alone is an insufficient answer to this question. What do we know about the author? What is their job? Where are they from? What is their age/gender/race? Does research to support this answer (university/book bio, publication bio from the academic’s website).
2. Audience: What group of people is expected to read/view this text? How well does the content/tone/language appeal to this group of people?
3. Purpose: What is this text trying to do? This is best answered by an infinitive verb (e.g. to persuade, to inform, to teach, etc).
4. Context: When was this text published? What publication does it come from and what do we know about that publication? What country does this text or publication come from? What’s important about the time period or publication in relation to the content or message of the text?
5. Thesis/message: What is the text about? What argument or point is the text making? What impression does it leave on the reader/viewer?

Additionally, the evaluation of the source must explain how the source relates to the research question

Sample Source Summary and Evaluation Paragraph

In their web magazine article “Who Made That Whoopee Cushion,” Hilary Greenbaum and Dana Rubinstein aim to inform the reader about the history of the Whoopee Cushion. According to the authors, the whoopee cushion originated in Canada in the 1930s, despite rumors of its existence in the Middle Ages. Soon after its invention, the toy grew in popularity, making an appearance in the 1942 movie “Road to Morocco” and 1950s comics. Greenbaum and Rubinstein also describe modern versions of the whoopee cushion, such as the remote-controlled Fart Machine and the iFart app. The article also contains an interview with famous comedian and actor Bob Saget on the impact of the whoopee cushion. The article’s intended audience is the general public, including readers of the New York Times Magazine as well as those interested in humor and other cultural trends.

Hilary Greenbaum and Dana Rubinstein are long-time reporters who focus on cultural commentary. Hilary Greenbaum is a graphic designer and serves as the design director for the Whitney Museum of American Art. She is also a professor at New York University’s School of Continuing and Professional Studies. Dana Rubinstein was educated at Cornell University and the Graduate School of Journalism at Columbia University. She has contributed to various publications in the New York area, including the New York Times Magazine and Politico. The New York Times magazine, first published in 1986, is a Sunday magazine supplement included within the Sunday edition of the New York Times. It has included many respected contributors throughout its history. This source connects with my research topic as it provides the history of one of the most common prank devices.

Greenbaum, Hilary and Dana Rubinstein. “Who Made That Whoopee Cushion?” The New York Times Magazine, 30 March 2012 http://www.nytimes.com/ 2012/04/01/ magazine/who-made-that-whoopee-cushion.html. Accessed 12 February 2017.

The CRAAP Test (Currency, Relevance, Authority, Accuracy, Purpose)

The Writing Commons “The CRAAP Test”

More details about each element can be found on the Writing Commons link above.

Currency	Current research may reinforce or, alternatively, repudiate prior research.
Relevance	Does the information directly support your argument, or is it merely interesting?
Authority	Who is the author and what are his or her credentials? Is it written for an academic or for a general audience?
Accuracy	Is the information from a reliable study or source? Is it verifiable?
Purpose	What can you determine about the source’s purpose? Does it have political, ideological, cultural, or other biases that may slant the information?