Source Evaluations
For this assignment, you will be finding sources on your Opinion Essay topic and evaluating them using a rubric below. Each source will receive a score for each category and a total score. This will help you determine whether a source is appropriate for use in academic writing. You will write your answers below; make sure to complete all areas (including the reflection at the end).
You are required to find sources appropriate for college-level academic research. Therefore, your sources for this assignment must receive 15-18 points total on the rubric. I will be checking each of your sources and the scores you give them so do not fudge the numbers—I will notice, and you will not like your grade.
Source Requirements:
- Choose 1 source that supports a point you made in your opinion essay.
- Choose 2 sources that add new pieces of information to your opinion essay.
- Choose 2 sources that reveal inaccuracies in your opinion essay or that challenge your point of view.
- Choose 1 source from which you can identify data that would in some way enhance an argument on your topic (either your original argument or the opposing view if you have changed your mind after conducting research).
SOURCE #1:
Author(s)
| Altman and Stuart.
|
Title A (Article Title, Essay Title, Document Title, and/or Title of Page on Website, etc.)
| Power, politics, and universal health care: the inside story of a century-long battle. |
Title B (Book Title, Journal Title, Magazine Title, Newspaper Title, Website Title, University, or Government Agency)
| The Best Health Care System In the world: The New York Times |
Highlight One:
- Supports a point you made in your opinion essay
- Adds new pieces of information to your opinion essay
- Reveals inaccuracies in your opinion essay or that challenge your point of view.
- Includes a quotation or data that would in some way enhance an argument on your topic (either your original argument or the opposing view if you have changed your mind after conducting research)
Highlight One for Each Criteria (Scores from 0 to 3):
Substance
0: No depth, or written for children, or inaccurate information.
1: Written for the public & lacks depth (superficial).
2: Written for an educated public & has depth (is fairly comprehensive).
3: Written at a college or professional level & thus has appropriate depth & complexity.
Currency
0: No publication or copyright date available.
1: Published or updated more than 6 years ago & has no historical value.
2: Published or updated 4-6 years ago, or may have historical value.
3: Published or updated 3 years ago or less, or it is a primary source with historical value
(e.g. Declaration of Independence).
Authority
0: No author or publisher name available.
1: Author or publisher named, but credentials cannot be verified, or credentials are unrelated to the topic
(e.g. PhD in History talking about Biochemistry).
2: Author named & credentials are verifiable, relevant, & demonstrate expertise on the topic or publisher is a credible source on topic.
3: Author’s credentials are verifiable, relevant, & demonstrate expertise on the topic, and publisher is reputable.
Relevance
0: Source is unrelated to your topic.
1: Source is related to topic, but info is not very useful (e.g. same info in another source that could be used instead).
2: Source is related to the topic & may be useful as background or overview information.
3: Source is related to the topic & is extremely useful for use as evidence or support.
Accuracy
0: Content seems unusual or source contains numerous errors in grammar, spelling, or punctuation or no sources
mentioned.
1: References are mentioned casually but not formally cited. No bibliography or list of references, or sources on the
bibliography do not exist or are not credible sources of information.
2: References are formally cited in-text & in a bibliography, list of references, footnotes, or endnotes.
3: References are formally cited in-text & in a bibliography, list of references, footnotes, or endnotes and source is
from a scholarly, peer-reviewed journal.
Bias
0: The source is entirely opinion-based & one-sided.
1: The source is persuasive but is not well-supported.
2: The source is persuasive but is well-cited (formally or informally) & supports arguments well.
3: The source is persuasive but is well-cited, supports arguments well, & considers both sides of the issue fairly; or
the source is fact-based & presents no argument.
Total Score
Remember, all sources for this assignment should earn 15-18 points!
0-6: Highly questionable source. Not appropriate for an academic, college-level research paper.
7-11: May be useful for personal purposes, but not appropriate for academic, college-level research.
12-14: Possibly a good source for academic, college-level research, but better sources may be available.
15-18: Probably an excellent source for academic, college-level research.
SOURCE #2:
Author(s)
| Cascella and Marco. |
Title A (Article Title, Essay Title, Document Title, and/or Title of Page on Website, etc.)
| Features, evaluation and treatment coronavirus (COVID-19) |
Title B (Book Title, Journal Title, Magazine Title, Newspaper Title, Website Title, University, or Government Agency)
| COVID-19 in the USA |
Highlight One:
- Supports a point you made in your opinion essay
- Adds new pieces of information to your opinion essay
- Reveals inaccuracies in your opinion essay or that challenge your point of view.
- Includes a quotation or data that would in some way enhance an argument on your topic (either your original argument or the opposing view if you have changed your mind after conducting research)
Highlight One for Each Criteria (Scores from 0 to 3):
Substance
0: No depth, or written for children, or inaccurate information.
1: Written for the public & lacks depth (superficial).
2: Written for an educated public & has depth (is fairly comprehensive).
3: Written at a college or professional level & thus has appropriate depth & complexity.
Currency
0: No publication or copyright date available.
1: Published or updated more than 6 years ago & has no historical value.
2: Published or updated 4-6 years ago, or may have historical value.
3: Published or updated 3 years ago or less, or it is a primary source with historical value
(e.g. Declaration of Independence).
Authority
0: No author or publisher name available.
1: Author or publisher named, but credentials cannot be verified, or credentials are unrelated to the topic
(e.g. PhD in History talking about Biochemistry).
2: Author named & credentials are verifiable, relevant, & demonstrate expertise on the topic or publisher is a credible source on topic.
3: Author’s credentials are verifiable, relevant, & demonstrate expertise on the topic, and publisher is reputable.
Relevance
0: Source is unrelated to your topic.
1: Source is related to topic, but info is not very useful (e.g. same info in another source that could be used instead).
2: Source is related to the topic & may be useful as background or overview information.
3: Source is related to the topic & is extremely useful for use as evidence or support.
Accuracy
0: Content seems unusual or source contains numerous errors in grammar, spelling, or punctuation or no sources
mentioned.
1: References are mentioned casually but not formally cited. No bibliography or list of references, or sources on the
bibliography do not exist or are not credible sources of information.
2: References are formally cited in-text & in a bibliography, list of references, footnotes, or endnotes.
3: References are formally cited in-text & in a bibliography, list of references, footnotes, or endnotes and source is
from a scholarly, peer-reviewed journal.
Bias
0: The source is entirely opinion-based & one-sided.
1: The source is persuasive but is not well-supported.
2: The source is persuasive but is well-cited (formally or informally) & supports arguments well.
3: The source is persuasive but is well-cited, supports arguments well, & considers both sides of the issue fairly; or
the source is fact-based & presents no argument.
Total Score
Remember, all sources for this assignment should earn 15-18 points!
0-6: Highly questionable source. Not appropriate for an academic, college-level research paper.
7-11: May be useful for personal purposes, but not appropriate for academic, college-level research.
12-14: Possibly a good source for academic, college-level research, but better sources may be available.
15-18: Probably an excellent source for academic, college-level research.
SOURCE #3:
Author(s)
| Smith, Jessica C., and Carla Medalia. |
Title A (Article Title, Essay Title, Document Title, and/or Title of Page on Website, etc.)
| Health insurance coverage in the United States: |
Title B (Book Title, Journal Title, Magazine Title, Newspaper Title, Website Title, University, or Government Agency)
| The Best Health Care System In the world: The New York Times |
Highlight One:
- Supports a point you made in your opinion essay
- Adds new pieces of information to your opinion essay
- Reveals inaccuracies in your opinion essay or that challenge your point of view.
- Includes a quotation or data that would in some way enhance an argument on your topic (either your original argument or the opposing view if you have changed your mind after conducting research)
Highlight One for Each Criteria (Scores from 0 to 3):
Substance
0: No depth, or written for children, or inaccurate information.
1: Written for the public & lacks depth (superficial).
2: Written for an educated public & has depth (is fairly comprehensive).
3: Written at a college or professional level & thus has appropriate depth & complexity.
Currency
0: No publication or copyright date available.
1: Published or updated more than 6 years ago & has no historical value.
2: Published or updated 4-6 years ago, or may have historical value.
3: Published or updated 3 years ago or less, or it is a primary source with historical value
(e.g. Declaration of Independence).
Authority
0: No author or publisher name available.
1: Author or publisher named, but credentials cannot be verified, or credentials are unrelated to the topic
(e.g. PhD in History talking about Biochemistry).
2: Author named & credentials are verifiable, relevant, & demonstrate expertise on the topic or publisher is a credible source on topic.
3: Author’s credentials are verifiable, relevant, & demonstrate expertise on the topic, and publisher is reputable.
Relevance
0: Source is unrelated to your topic.
1: Source is related to topic, but info is not very useful (e.g. same info in another source that could be used instead).
2: Source is related to the topic & may be useful as background or overview information.
3: Source is related to the topic & is extremely useful for use as evidence or support.
Accuracy
0: Content seems unusual or source contains numerous errors in grammar, spelling, or punctuation or no sources
mentioned.
1: References are mentioned casually but not formally cited. No bibliography or list of references, or sources on the
bibliography do not exist or are not credible sources of information.
2: References are formally cited in-text & in a bibliography, list of references, footnotes, or endnotes.
3: References are formally cited in-text & in a bibliography, list of references, footnotes, or endnotes and source is
from a scholarly, peer-reviewed journal.
Bias
0: The source is entirely opinion-based & one-sided.
1: The source is persuasive but is not well-supported.
2: The source is persuasive but is well-cited (formally or informally) & supports arguments well.
3: The source is persuasive but is well-cited, supports arguments well, & considers both sides of the issue fairly; or
the source is fact-based & presents no argument.
Total Score
Remember, all sources for this assignment should earn 15-18 points!
0-6: Highly questionable source. Not appropriate for an academic, college-level research paper.
7-11: May be useful for personal purposes, but not appropriate for academic, college-level research.
12-14: Possibly a good source for academic, college-level research, but better sources may be available.
15-18: Probably an excellent source for academic, college-level research.
SOURCE #4:
Author(s)
| Sommers, Benjamin D., Atul A. Gawande, and Katherine Baicker
|
Title A (Article Title, Essay Title, Document Title, and/or Title of Page on Website, etc.)
| Health insurance coverage |
Title B (Book Title, Journal Title, Magazine Title, Newspaper Title, Website Title, University, or Government Agency)
| The US Affordable Care Act |
Highlight One:
- Supports a point you made in your opinion essay
- Adds new pieces of information to your opinion essay
- Reveals inaccuracies in your opinion essay or that challenge your point of view.
- Includes a quotation or data that would in some way enhance an argument on your topic (either your original argument or the opposing view if you have changed your mind after conducting research)
Highlight One for Each Criteria (Scores from 0 to 3):
Substance
0: No depth, or written for children, or inaccurate information.
1: Written for the public & lacks depth (superficial).
2: Written for an educated public & has depth (is fairly comprehensive).
3: Written at a college or professional level & thus has appropriate depth & complexity.
Currency
0: No publication or copyright date available.
1: Published or updated more than 6 years ago & has no historical value.
2: Published or updated 4-6 years ago, or may have historical value.
3: Published or updated 3 years ago or less, or it is a primary source with historical value
(e.g. Declaration of Independence).
Authority
0: No author or publisher name available.
1: Author or publisher named, but credentials cannot be verified, or credentials are unrelated to the topic
(e.g. PhD in History talking about Biochemistry).
2: Author named & credentials are verifiable, relevant, & demonstrate expertise on the topic or publisher is a credible source on topic.
3: Author’s credentials are verifiable, relevant, & demonstrate expertise on the topic, and publisher is reputable.
Relevance
0: Source is unrelated to your topic.
1: Source is related to topic, but info is not very useful (e.g. same info in another source that could be used instead).
2: Source is related to the topic & may be useful as background or overview information.
3: Source is related to the topic & is extremely useful for use as evidence or support.
Accuracy
0: Content seems unusual or source contains numerous errors in grammar, spelling, or punctuation or no sources
mentioned.
1: References are mentioned casually but not formally cited. No bibliography or list of references, or sources on the
bibliography do not exist or are not credible sources of information.
2: References are formally cited in-text & in a bibliography, list of references, footnotes, or endnotes.
3: References are formally cited in-text & in a bibliography, list of references, footnotes, or endnotes and source is
from a scholarly, peer-reviewed journal.
Bias
0: The source is entirely opinion-based & one-sided.
1: The source is persuasive but is not well-supported.
2: The source is persuasive but is well-cited (formally or informally) & supports arguments well.
3: The source is persuasive but is well-cited, supports arguments well, & considers both sides of the issue fairly; or
the source is fact-based & presents no argument.
Total Score
Remember, all sources for this assignment should earn 15-18 points!
0-6: Highly questionable source. Not appropriate for an academic, college-level research paper.
7-11: May be useful for personal purposes, but not appropriate for academic, college-level research.
12-14: Possibly a good source for academic, college-level research, but better sources may be available.
15-18: Probably an excellent source for academic, college-level research.
SOURCE #5:
Author(s)
| World Health Organization. |
Title A (Article Title, Essay Title, Document Title, and/or Title of Page on Website, etc.)
| Tracking universal health coverage |
Title B (Book Title, Journal Title, Magazine Title, Newspaper Title, Website Title, University, or Government Agency)
| International Health Care System Profiles |
Highlight One:
- Supports a point you made in your opinion essay
- Adds new pieces of information to your opinion essay
- Reveals inaccuracies in your opinion essay or that challenge your point of view.
- Includes a quotation or data that would in some way enhance an argument on your topic (either your original argument or the opposing view if you have changed your mind after conducting research)
Highlight One for Each Criteria (Scores from 0 to 3):
Substance
0: No depth, or written for children, or inaccurate information.
1: Written for the public & lacks depth (superficial).
2: Written for an educated public & has depth (is fairly comprehensive).
3: Written at a college or professional level & thus has appropriate depth & complexity.
Currency
0: No publication or copyright date available.
1: Published or updated more than 6 years ago & has no historical value.
2: Published or updated 4-6 years ago, or may have historical value.
3: Published or updated 3 years ago or less, or it is a primary source with historical value
(e.g. Declaration of Independence).
Authority
0: No author or publisher name available.
1: Author or publisher named, but credentials cannot be verified, or credentials are unrelated to the topic
(e.g. PhD in History talking about Biochemistry).
2: Author named & credentials are verifiable, relevant, & demonstrate expertise on the topic or publisher is a credible source on topic.
3: Author’s credentials are verifiable, relevant, & demonstrate expertise on the topic, and publisher is reputable.
Relevance
0: Source is unrelated to your topic.
1: Source is related to topic, but info is not very useful (e.g. same info in another source that could be used instead).
2: Source is related to the topic & may be useful as background or overview information.
3: Source is related to the topic & is extremely useful for use as evidence or support.
Accuracy
0: Content seems unusual or source contains numerous errors in grammar, spelling, or punctuation or no sources
mentioned.
1: References are mentioned casually but not formally cited. No bibliography or list of references, or sources on the
bibliography do not exist or are not credible sources of information.
2: References are formally cited in-text & in a bibliography, list of references, footnotes, or endnotes.
3: References are formally cited in-text & in a bibliography, list of references, footnotes, or endnotes and source is
from a scholarly, peer-reviewed journal.
Bias
0: The source is entirely opinion-based & one-sided.
1: The source is persuasive but is not well-supported.
2: The source is persuasive but is well-cited (formally or informally) & supports arguments well.
3: The source is persuasive but is well-cited, supports arguments well, & considers both sides of the issue fairly; or
the source is fact-based & presents no argument.
Total Score
Remember, all sources for this assignment should earn 15-18 points!
0-6: Highly questionable source. Not appropriate for an academic, college-level research paper.
7-11: May be useful for personal purposes, but not appropriate for academic, college-level research.
12-14: Possibly a good source for academic, college-level research, but better sources may be available.
15-18: Probably an excellent source for academic, college-level research.
SOURCE #6:
Author(s)
| Tabrizi, Gharibi & Wilson |
Title A (Article Title, Essay Title, Document Title, and/or Title of Page on Website, etc.)
| Advantages and disadvantages of health care.
|
Title B (Book Title, Journal Title, Magazine Title, Newspaper Title, Website Title, University, or Government Agency)
| Universal Health Coverage (UHC) |
Highlight One:
- Supports a point you made in your opinion essay
- Adds new pieces of information to your opinion essay
- Reveals inaccuracies in your opinion essay or that challenge your point of view.
- Includes a quotation or data that would in some way enhance an argument on your topic (either your original argument or the opposing view if you have changed your mind after conducting research)
Highlight One for Each Criteria (Scores from 0 to 3):
Substance
0: No depth, or written for children, or inaccurate information.
1: Written for the public & lacks depth (superficial).
2: Written for an educated public & has depth (is fairly comprehensive).
3: Written at a college or professional level & thus has appropriate depth & complexity.
Currency
0: No publication or copyright date available.
1: Published or updated more than 6 years ago & has no historical value.
2: Published or updated 4-6 years ago, or may have historical value.
3: Published or updated 3 years ago or less, or it is a primary source with historical value
(e.g. Declaration of Independence).
Authority
0: No author or publisher name available.
1: Author or publisher named, but credentials cannot be verified, or credentials are unrelated to the topic
(e.g. PhD in History talking about Biochemistry).
2: Author named & credentials are verifiable, relevant, & demonstrate expertise on the topic or publisher is a credible source on topic.
3: Author’s credentials are verifiable, relevant, & demonstrate expertise on the topic, and publisher is reputable.
Relevance
0: Source is unrelated to your topic.
1: Source is related to topic, but info is not very useful (e.g. same info in another source that could be used instead).
2: Source is related to the topic & may be useful as background or overview information.
3: Source is related to the topic & is extremely useful for use as evidence or support.
Accuracy
0: Content seems unusual or source contains numerous errors in grammar, spelling, or punctuation or no sources
mentioned.
1: References are mentioned casually but not formally cited. No bibliography or list of references, or sources on the
bibliography do not exist or are not credible sources of information.
2: References are formally cited in-text & in a bibliography, list of references, footnotes, or endnotes.
3: References are formally cited in-text & in a bibliography, list of references, footnotes, or endnotes and source is
from a scholarly, peer-reviewed journal.
Bias
0: The source is entirely opinion-based & one-sided.
1: The source is persuasive but is not well-supported.
2: The source is persuasive but is well-cited (formally or informally) & supports arguments well.
3: The source is persuasive but is well-cited, supports arguments well, & considers both sides of the issue fairly; or
the source is fact-based & presents no argument.
Total Score
Remember, all sources for this assignment should earn 15-18 points!
0-6: Highly questionable source. Not appropriate for an academic, college-level research paper.
7-11: May be useful for personal purposes, but not appropriate for academic, college-level research.
12-14: Possibly a good source for academic, college-level research, but better sources may be available.
15-18: Probably an excellent source for academic, college-level research.