|
|
Accuracy: This article is a factual
report on World No-Tobacco Day 1994, which at the time it was written,
had not occurred yet. It discusses the theme of the day, reasons
for the theme, and sponsors. It seems to have very accurate information,
citing reputable references.
Authority: This article has a copyright
belonging to the University of Pennsylvania. It also lists reliable
references such as the World Health Organization and the National Cancer
Institute.
Objectivity: It is written in a very objective way. It is more of a report of upcoming events than an opinion piece.
Currency: Since it is a report of the 1994 World No-Tobacco Day, it is not a current article. The last revision date for this site was April 2001.
Coverage: The coverage of this event is minimal since it is an article telling of an upcoming event. It briefly lists some activities which will occur on World No-Tobacco Day, and it discusses the origin of the theme—the role of the media in tobacco control.
Overall Impression: We think this
article is definitely from a reputable source and that its information
is true. However, for a student doing research, this is probably
not a great resource because it is 7 years old and contains few details
which could be used in a report. It may be a springboard for a student
to look up one of the organizations involved in World No-Tobacco Day or
to look for information on this day in more recent years.
Article #2: Health Hazards of Tobacco: Some Facts
Accuracy: The facts were not footnoted, with no references cited. The factual information appears clearly written and easily understood.
Authority: On the web page no author was cited. Following the links back to the homepage for the site, there is a link to a message from the Director General of the World Health Organization. His name is listed but there is no way to contact him. The site is sponsored by the World Health Organization (WHO), but does not have a link to the organization' s main site. The main site was reached by deleting the last part of the URL and going to http://www.who.int/
Objectivity: There are no ads. The site expresses the opinion that smoking is harmful, cites facts to prove this. The facts are stated in a non confrontational way. The opinion of the site's authors is expressed by trying to enact tobacco free promotion of sports and the arts.
Currency: The page is about Smoke Free Day on May 31, 1996, but when links are traced back to the WHO, it is current up through this week. The pages of the article state no last revision date.
Coverage: The promotion of the Smoke Free Day, May 31, 1996, would not be valuable to current students, but the facts stated in the article are interesting and may have relevance to our students.
Overall Impression: The site is sponsored by the World Health Organization and seems to have accurate facts about the dangers of smoking to health. The site is well written and students could get some useful facts for reference work.
Article #3-- Secondhand Smoke--The Big Lie
Accuracy: The author does not cite his references, but he does refer to sources in his writing such as the EPA. The author's name is given, but there is no mention of his credentials or professional background.
Authority: Again, the author's name and email are given, but he does not reveal why he feels that he has the authority to write on the subject of smoking. However, we found through following some of the links in the article that he is affiliated with a group called "Smokers with Attitude".
Objectivity: The whole purpose of this article is to state the author's opinion. He does use undocumented 'facts' to make his point, but he is very adamant about the unfair treatment smokers are getting from the government and the public.
Currency: This article has copyright dates of 1994 and 1995. If you follow the links which go back to the "Smokers with Attitude" site, you will see that the organization's website is very current. It has been updated within the past few days.
Coverage: If looking for a smoker's side of the debate on smoking, we feel this is a very thorough article. The author is obviously very passionate about the subject and he gives many reasons for his feelings. However, it must be noted that it does not cover the non-smoker's opinion at all. It is a very one-sided article.
Overall Impression: This article would
be useful to demonstrate an opinion piece or to use in conjunction with
another article giving the opposing view of the smoking issue. However,
we feel that using this article to demonstrate source verification would
not be effective. Also, teachers must take precautions to make sure
that the students do not access some of the links from this article because
they contain foul language (Guest book on the "Smokers with Attitudes"
website).