----------------------------
http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/ch02/ch02_sec001.html
This web page contains a manual, if you will, on how to cite sources of
information in Chicago Manual of Style.
The information found here, can be considered reliable, as it was recommended as a good reference, by Drew University, which is a reputable institution.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/15/washington/15cong.html?ref=middleeast
This source is also a credible news source on actual events. This source also has references from reliable people. This website also has direct quotes from what people have said.
This source has also been published in print and is used for reference. This source uses government references throughout the article and they’re knowledge on the topic.
http://www.biolbull.org.ezproxy.drew.edu/
-found through drew
-connected to credible institutions
-has details
-connected to published written work (hard copy)
-copyrighted by a big institution
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis
1.) This website has a “.gov” web address, meaning that it is an official government site.
2.) The site is backed by the U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services Department, which is a respected organization.
3.) There is a toll free number listed where one can call with any problems or comments, as well as an email address.
4.) The source offers the full text of many official documents, including both present and past versions.
5.) The website looks very professional features many different links, such as search options and press releases related to immigration.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2001/09/12/AR2005033107980.html
One reason why this is a reliable source is that it has an exact date and time when the article was published.
Another reason is that it contains the page number of the actual article in the newspaper.
A third reason is that it comes from a well known newspaper, The Washington Post.
A fourth reason is that it has accurate details and does not stray from the topic.
Lastly, the article has an author and indicates his title as The Washington Post Staff Writer.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/14/washington/14prexy.html?_r=1&ref=world&oref=slogin
One of the reasons why this is a reliable source is that the source came from a reputable newspaper, The New York Times.
A second reason is that instead of just repeating the facts the authors used quotes to support their article.
The third reason that this is a reliable source is that there are links for information about the authors of the article.
A fourth reason is that there is practically no bias against the topic that the authors are writing about. Lastly, the page is very recent and not outdated.
The publishing date is today's date.
http://www.usimmigrationsupport.org/index.html
1.) The source seems reliable because the information is presented in facts
with no personal opinions or judgments included.
2.) The site has a “.org” web address meaning that it is an organization. In this case, it is a service organization.
3.) There are also many different website certifications that the site has and which have been updated recently, such as TrustKeeper, Trust-e, and authorize.net.
4.) The website is a division of a publishing company located in Delaware, which works to help educate immigrants about the necessary paperwork, and the website also offers these people a chance to purchase many of the needed materials.
5.) The website has a customer service address, fax number, email, and address to get in touch with people.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/10/iraq.petraeus/index.html)
CNN is based out of Atlanta, Georgia but covers stories around the globe.
Their website is updated several times each minute and their televisions stations is considered the most reputable in the national.
1. Leader in News
2. Branches in areas in which they are reporting
3. Good quotes from actual public and private statements with leading officials
4. Gives both sides of argument
5. Gives accurate numbers and statistics
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3012989
ESPN
1.Another reputable source.
2. Specializes in sports and this story should have every angle covered.
3 Video that is on the website.
4. Direct quotes from the players.
5. Many different links to relating stories by different writers.
http://www.public.asu.edu/~macalla/logosethospathos.html
---------------------------------
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070915232613AAmwBDY
This is obviously unreliable information due to the fact that it is a forum. It is not official and includes no professional scientists.
While the information COULD be accurate, it is stated without citation or credibility of any sort of research.
Some replies to the question are serious answers, but some are said jokingly, such as one saying that dinosaurs died out due to humans taking their habitats.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphorus
The problem with online encyclopedias like Wikipedia, is that they are open to
alteration by the public, meaning just about anybody, can post information,
which can be inaccurate or out-of-date.
Therefore, public domain encyclopedias should not be used for research, but if used, should only be used for preliminary data gathering.
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles2/Mahajan-Jensen_Iraq-Myths-Facts.htm
This website is not reliable because it discusses myths and facts about the war. This website was also written by two people without references, which would not be very reliable.
The statements that are written can’t really be proved as credible facts. It also doesn’t really focus on the war itself but topics around the war. This website is also just opinions from the writer.
http://studiocarey.blogspot.com/2007/03/buh-donk-donk.html
This site does not offer much information and is very brief in its description on the subject.
It also makes you register for more information.
Any sites that are dominantly gossip and blogs are usually not reliable.
These sites are usually controlled by one person who may not be a real newspaper reporter.
1. Liberal bias
2. Not well known
3. Not respected on world scale
4. Few reporters
5. Open reporting (anyone can post)
http://www.411mania.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=5851703&Main=5851535
411Mania
1. Another forum type site with many opinions being told.
2. Facts could be wrong.
3. The blogs are mostly questions.
4. Whatever facts there are, are minimal.
5. There is no story and data is hard to get out of this site.
http://deathpenaltyinfo.msu.edu/c/about/arguments/argument1b.htm
The Death Penalty: This source is unreliable because it was constructed by a high school class.
The research is not done efficiently and the information may not be accurate.
The people writing the information are not experts nor do they have experience with the topic.
http://www.medem.com/medlb/article_detaillb.cfm?article_ID=ZZZXTUNG4BC&sub_cat=205