Problem Statement Evaluation

Currency

• • No publishing date

  • No revision date

  • Older sources can work as well

  • Links are functional

Relevance

• • Relates to topic

  • Intended audience is America

  • Appropriate

  • Checked sources before this

  • Comfortable citing

Authority

• • Union of Concerned Scientists

  • There are scientists, engineers, economists, analysts, and policy experts

  • The author is qualified to write about this

  • Under the website's about

  • It is an organization(.org), so it is credible

Accuracy

• • Information retrieved from their research

  • They backup their claims with evidence

  • No citing of the information being reviewed, but possibly

  • Information is verifiable

  • Tries to direct the problems to everybody

  • No errors in text

Purpose

• • To inform, and partly persuade

  • The intentions are clear

  • Facts

  • Objective

• No bias in text

Currency

• • Source 1: The links work. This was posted 04/30/2001, and does not specify whether or not it has been updated or revised since then. While it was posted in 2001, there have been no significant leaps in bicycle chain systems since then.

  • Source 2: The link somewhat works. When revisiting, it requires that you purchase a membership, but if searched directly from google, the statistics can be found. The most recent numbers are gathered from 2014 surveys. Being 2016, and a constantly changing population, the numbers are about two years old, however the previous years show that there is not much change in the numbers anyway.

  • Source 3: The link works. The information was posted 11/07/2013. The information is even older than before, so the numbers could have altered some. However, this is a survey about rider's comfort on riding on different kinds of roads, therefore their answers very possibly could be the same or very similar. The only major change I could foresee is feeling of safety on specified bike lanes.

Relevance

• • When compared to each other, source 1 and 2 seem to be the best. Considering numbers, source 2 is chosen because of it's more current date and general numbers provided to give reference to the problem. Source 1 is very different from the others and provides background on technology relating to bike chains and how they operate.

Authority

• • Source 1: Robert L. Barnett did all of the research needed and proper steps to get his idea patented, so he has good background on the subject of bike chain technology. No contact information is provided.

  • Source 2: No author is provided, but it is a general information page, so there are not normally authors (or their contact information) provided for such pages. The URL itself implies that the information will be comprised of statistics, not much else.

  • Source 3: The author and his title are given for this source: Michael Andersen, Green Lane Project staff writer. No contact information is directly given. The URL claims that the information provided with this site is going to be used by people interested in biking already.

Accuracy

• • All of the sources are verified or verifiable when compared to other sources on the internet. While source 1 cannot be verified elsewhere because it is a unique patent, source 2 can be verified on sources like http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=60129554202, where the same and more information is provided. All of the language in source 1 and 2 are appropriate and unbiased, no feeling or interpretation of numbers outside of analytics is given. Source 3, however, turns its evidence for a purpose, in convincing readers that many people are still nervous or afraid about riding their bikes on actual roads.

Purpose

• • Source 1 and 2: Each of these sources are unbiased and have no other purpose but to inform and clearly present information and ideas. They do not attempt to persuade the audience of anything, only lay out facts.

• Source 3: This information is intended to persuade the audience, sway them towards what they believe the statistics and numbers show.