1) Content and Credibility a. Is the article accurate & thorough i. Yes. This article covers all the same information that I found in previous searches. b. Does it answer your questions about the topic? i. Yes. This article covers all the pertinent information. The problem is that they make light of the situation and put jokes in the article. 2) Currency a. What is the date or timestamp of the article? Has it been revised? i. March 12, 2014 was when this article was published. It does not look like it has been revised since then. b. Is there information that could be updated? i. It doesn't include the fact that he plead guilty and was fined $79 for it. 3) Authority and Credibility a. Is the author identified? i. Yes. Tony Hicks b. Can we see their job title or description? i. No, but it is assumed that he is a reporter for the Constra Costa Times. c. Can you see where the article originates? i. Yes. It the San Jose Mercury News (California) 4) Continuity and Comparability a. Will the internet site be maintained and updated? i. Yes this site is maintained and updated regularly. Just not in real time. b. Can you rely on this source over time to provide up-to-date information? i. Yes. It is only a couple days old so other than a couple details it is still accurate. c. Does the internet site contain complete information as found in the comparable article? i. It does mostly. The comparable article I found was a little newer and covered his trail, plea, and fine. 5) Biases and Censorship a. Does that article seem biased in any way in its point of view? i. Yes. The author tries to make jokes throughout the article ruining his credibility as a source. In a serious article jokes and whit are negatives. b. Is there information included or not included that is found in the comparable article? i. There is a few pieces of information that could have been covered that was found in the comparable article. Such as his plea and the fine. However this has the name of

1) Content - There isn't a lot of content on this page. But what there is seems accurate and posted without bias. 2) Credibility - Since this is USA today posting an Associated Press article I would say this is a reliable source. 3) Critical Thinking - Using standard deductive reasoning I can safely assume that this article is valid. I heard about it earlier and it's on a trusted news site. 4) Copyright - This page was copyrighted in 2014. But the article itself was uploaded 8:21 PM EST. 5) Citation - This article was originally an Associated Press article and they sight that at the bottom as well as giving credit to the photographer of the picture they used. 6) Continuity - There isn't a lot of continuity problems as this article is from today. It can be updated but only by USA today staff. 7) Censorship - This page is moderated fully. You can't even post comments on this article. You can however join a community discussion if you sign up and agree to their Terms of service. 8) Connectivity - This link like many others allows users to click directly on links for additional articles. However this one also adds a link to repost it directly on social media pages. 9) Comparability - This article has been reposted and confirm by numerous sites. It seems to be originally an Associated Press article that by using Google you can get more information on. 10) - Context - Within the scope of the search for "Chris Pine, DUI" this is the exact article I was looking for. It is short and easy to read and digest without going into too many details. Web Page Evaluation: Currency - 15, Content -15, Authority -10, Navigation -10, Experience -10, Multimedia -3. Treatment -7, Access -10, Miscellaneous - 8. Total:88 - Good.

1) Content and Credibility a. Is the article accurate & thorough i. Incredibly so. It not only had links to the web article but also links and information on the entire company. b. Does it answer your questions about the topic i. Not directly but through links to the company's press releases. 2) Currency a. What is the date or timestamp of the article? Has it been revised? i. The time stamp on the article is March 12, 2014. It doesn't appear to be revised after that date. b. Is there information that could be updated? i. Not really. This one is pretty good because it covers not only basic information about the company but also links to the content I was looking for directly. 3) Authority and Credibility a. Is the author identified? i. No but it does have the page it is from. b. Can we see their job title or description? i. Not for the person who wrote the article but the financial institution that it came from. c. Can you see where the article originates? i. Yes from Reuters Knowledge Direct. 4) Continuity and Comparability a. Will the internet site be maintained and updated? i. This site is often updated. In this case mostly in a timely fashion. b. Can you rely on this source over time to provide up-to-date information? i. It still isn't real time but it is pretty close. This article was uploaded just a couple days ago. c. Does the internet site contain complete information as found in the comparable article? i. Yes. At least as it relates to the discussion of gay rights. This article has more information on the whole company. 5) Biases and Censorship a. Does that article seem biased in any way in its point of view? i. No. This article is factual instead of guiding towards a particular view. Because it focuses on the company as a whole and not the current debate it maintains its neutrality. b. Is there information included or not included that is found in the comparable article? i. Not within the scope of this article. Because this article just dic

1) Content and Credibility a. Is the article accurate & thorough i. It seems to be both accurate and thorough. b. Does it answer your questions about the topic i. No. It covered more information about the church and protests and counter protest. 2) Currency a. What is the date or timestamp of the article? Has it been revised? i. This article was published on March 3 2014 and does not show if it has been revised. b. Is there information that could be updated? i. Not in the context of this article. It is pretty much a recording of events that happened in the past. 3) Authority and Credibility a. Is the author identified? i. Yes. Brittany Woolsey b. Can we see their job title or description? i. Yes Staff Writer for the Orange County Register c. Can you see where the article originates? i. Orange County Register 4) Continuity and Comparability a. Will the internet site be maintained and updated? i. The internet site for LexisNexis is continuously updated but not kept in real time. b. Can you rely on this source over time to provide up-to-date information? Not up-to-date but close. c. Does the internet site contain complete information as found in the comparable article? i. Yes. It also has external links for more information 5) Biases and Censorship a. Does that article seem biased in any way in its point of view? i. No. The article just lays out the facts instead of painting the church in a negative light. b. Is there information included or not included that is found in the comparable article? i. Yes, this article was good if you were looking for just the activities and description of the Westborough Baptist Church. But it does not contain anything about Rev. Fred Phelps Sr.'s medical condition.

1) Content and Credibility a. Is the article accurate & thorough i. This article seems to be accurate and thorough. It's well written. b. Does it answer your questions about the topic i. This article answered basic questions on my topic but to the exact information I was looking for. 2) Currency a. What is the date or timestamp of the article? Has it been revised? i. September 26th, 2013 b. Is there information that could be updated? i. Yes there was, this article focused on more on Russian oil running low and how the Kremlin was looking towards Siberian shale to replenish it and not at all about the interactions of the US in that regard. 3) Authority and Credibility a. Is the author identified? i. Yes. His name is Guy Chazan. b. Can we see their job title or description? i. No. c. Can you see where the article originates? i. Yes. It originated in the Financial Times (London, England) 4) Continuity and Comparability a. Will the internet site be maintained and updated? i. For the most part yes. It seems that it is often update but not current. b. Can you rely on this source over time to provide up-to-date information? i. No. It does update but not often enough to provide up-to-date information. c. Does the internet site contain complete information as found in the comparable article? i. Yes it does at least about the value of Russian oil. It doesn't contain anything about how people are reacting to the current foreign policy from President Obama. 5) Biases and Censorship a. Does that article seem biased in any way in its point of view? i. No. It seems unbiased and direct in its point of view. It doesn't take either side, but still relates all the information properly. b. Is there information included or not included that is found in the comparable article? i. It didn't have any information on the actions or reaction of the US or the world.

1) Content and Credibility a. Is the article accurate & thorough i. This article seems to be accurate and thorough. It's well written. b. Does it answer your questions about the topic i. This article answered basic questions on my topic but to the exact information I was looking for. 2) Currency a. What is the date or timestamp of the article? Has it been revised? i. September 26th, 2013 b. Is there information that could be updated? i. Yes there was, this article focused on more on Russian oil running low and how the Kremlin was looking towards Siberian shale to replenish it and not at all about the interactions of the US in that regard. 3) Authority and Credibility a. Is the author identified? i. Yes. His name is Guy Chazan. b. Can we see their job title or description? i. No. c. Can you see where the article originates? i. Yes. It originated in the Financial Times (London, England) 4) Continuity and Comparability a. Will the internet site be maintained and updated? i. For the most part yes. It seems that it is often update but not current. b. Can you rely on this source over time to provide up-to-date information? i. No. It does update but not often enough to provide up-to-date information. c. Does the internet site contain complete information as found in the comparable article? i. Yes it does at least about the value of Russian oil. It doesn't contain anything about how people are reacting to the current foreign policy from President Obama. 5) Biases and Censorship a. Does that article seem biased in any way in its point of view? i. No. It seems unbiased and direct in its point of view. It doesn't take either side, but still relates all the information properly. b. Is there information included or not included that is found in the comparable article? i. It didn't have any information on the actions or reaction of the US or the world.

1) Content and Credibility a. Is the article accurate & thorough i. Yes, very much so. It paints a positive image on the tragedy. b. Does it answer your questions about the topic i. Yes, it focuses on information about the plane and the information surrounding its disappearance. 2) Currency a. What is the date or timestamp of the article? Has it been revised? i. This Article was updated 03/16/2014. There is no record of it being altered or revised since upload. b. Is there information that could be updated? i. No. Because this article was uploaded and published today the information is current. 3) Authority and Credibility a. Is the author identified? i. Yes, Larry McShane b. Can we see their job title or description? i. No. But it is assumed that he is a reporter for the New York Daily News c. Can you see where the article originates? i. Yes. New York Daily News, Page 5 4) Continuity and Comparability a. Will the internet site be maintained and updated? i. Yes. This site is updated often to maintain the most accurate information. b. Can you rely on this source over time to provide up-to-date information? i. Yes. It may not be bleeding edge down to the second up to date, but it is at best only a few hours old. c. Does the internet site contain complete information as found in the comparable article? i. No. Not in the article itself. It does provide options to search for additional articles and provides a way to narrow your search 5) Biases and Censorship a. Does that article seem biased in any way in its point of view? i. Yes, but not in a bad way. It was about how hope hasn't been lost in the search for the plane. b. Is there information included or not included that is found in the comparable article? i. Not currently. Because of how new the article is there isn't really any more information on it. If it included all the information available it would be come hard to read.

1) Content and Credibility a. Is the article accurate & thorough i. Yes, very much so. It paints a positive image on the tragedy. b. Does it answer your questions about the topic i. Yes, it focuses on information about the plane and the information surrounding its disappearance. 2) Currency a. What is the date or timestamp of the article? Has it been revised? i. This Article was updated 03/16/2014. There is no record of it being altered or revised since upload. b. Is there information that could be updated? i. No. Because this article was uploaded and published today the information is current. 3) Authority and Credibility a. Is the author identified? i. Yes, Larry McShane b. Can we see their job title or description? i. No. But it is assumed that he is a reporter for the New York Daily News c. Can you see where the article originates? i. Yes. New York Daily News, Page 5 4) Continuity and Comparability a. Will the internet site be maintained and updated? i. Yes. This site is updated often to maintain the most accurate information. b. Can you rely on this source over time to provide up-to-date information? i. Yes. It may not be bleeding edge down to the second up to date, but it is at best only a few hours old. c. Does the internet site contain complete information as found in the comparable article? i. No. Not in the article itself. It does provide options to search for additional articles and provides a way to narrow your search 5) Biases and Censorship a. Does that article seem biased in any way in its point of view? i. Yes, but not in a bad way. It was about how hope hasn't been lost in the search for the plane. b. Is there information included or not included that is found in the comparable article? i. Not currently. Because of how new the article is there isn't really any more information on it. If it included all the information available it would be come hard to read.

1) Content and Credibility a. Is the article accurate & thorough i. This article seems to be accurate and thorough. It's well written. b. Does it answer your questions about the topic i. This article answered basic questions on my topic but to the exact information I was looking for. 2) Currency a. What is the date or timestamp of the article? Has it been revised? i. September 26th, 2013 b. Is there information that could be updated? i. Yes there was, this article focused on more on Russian oil running low and how the Kremlin was looking towards Siberian shale to replenish it and not at all about the interactions of the US in that regard. 3) Authority and Credibility a. Is the author identified? i. Yes. His name is Guy Chazan. b. Can we see their job title or description? i. No. c. Can you see where the article originates? i. Yes. It originated in the Financial Times (London, England) 4) Continuity and Comparability a. Will the internet site be maintained and updated? i. For the most part yes. It seems that it is often update but not current. b. Can you rely on this source over time to provide up-to-date information? i. No. It does update but not often enough to provide up-to-date information. c. Does the internet site contain complete information as found in the comparable article? i. Yes it does at least about the value of Russian oil. It doesn't contain anything about how people are reacting to the current foreign policy from President Obama. 5) Biases and Censorship a. Does that article seem biased in any way in its point of view? i. No. It seems unbiased and direct in its point of view. It doesn't take either side, but still relates all the information properly. b. Is there information included or not included that is found in the comparable article? i. It didn't have any information on the actions or reaction of the US or the world.

1) Content and Credibility a. Is the article accurate & thorough i. Yes, very much so. It paints a positive image on the tragedy. b. Does it answer your questions about the topic i. Yes, it focuses on information about the plane and the information surrounding its disappearance. 2) Currency a. What is the date or timestamp of the article? Has it been revised? i. This Article was updated 03/16/2014. There is no record of it being altered or revised since upload. b. Is there information that could be updated? i. No. Because this article was uploaded and published today the information is current. 3) Authority and Credibility a. Is the author identified? i. Yes, Larry McShane b. Can we see their job title or description? i. No. But it is assumed that he is a reporter for the New York Daily News c. Can you see where the article originates? i. Yes. New York Daily News, Page 5 4) Continuity and Comparability a. Will the internet site be maintained and updated? i. Yes. This site is updated often to maintain the most accurate information. b. Can you rely on this source over time to provide up-to-date information? i. Yes. It may not be bleeding edge down to the second up to date, but it is at best only a few hours old. c. Does the internet site contain complete information as found in the comparable article? i. No. Not in the article itself. It does provide options to search for additional articles and provides a way to narrow your search 5) Biases and Censorship a. Does that article seem biased in any way in its point of view? i. Yes, but not in a bad way. It was about how hope hasn't been lost in the search for the plane. b. Is there information included or not included that is found in the comparable article? i. Not currently. Because of how new the article is there isn't really any more information on it. If it included all the information available it would be come hard to read.

1) Content - The content in this article is remarkably good. It seems fair and unbiased and is written as a serious post. It provides details on the facts and the mysterious circumstances surrounding the loss of this plane 2) Credibility - CNN by itself is a reliable source. But also they provide links to outside articles on the page to corroborate their posting of the story. 3) Critical Thinking - Based on the information in the article you can deduce a lot about the plane and the issues with the search. I helps you think by mentioning important details and providing links to search for more information. 4) Copyright - This page itself was copyrighted in 2014. This article itself was posted on Sun March 16th, 2014. Meaning that it was updated today. 5) Citation - This site cites its references and provides links to them for additional information. 6) Continuity - Because of CNN's informational network this site can be updated within hours if not minutes. This up to date information provides room for new information to enter the article. 7) Censorship - This is posted and maintained by CNN so there is most likely some degree of censorship. But the comments can be posted immediately. However, if your post is tagged as offensive they will remove it. 8) Connectivity - This site is vastly interconnected both with corresponding articles on CNN.com and outside articles. It's easy to use and Easy to navigate. 9) Comparability - This page can be compared to many other pages. In fact, this article is the center of many websites referencing its information for reposting. 10) - Context - The scope of this page in context is a little biased. It tries to hint at the fact that the plane could have been hijacked and focuses on that speculation only giving a slight reference that the Ministry of Transportation has said that they aren't pursuing it that way but are looking into all of the information on why it deviated. Web Page Evaluation: Cur

1) Content - The content in this article is remarkably good. It seems fair and unbiased and is written as a serious post. It provides details on the facts and the mysterious circumstances surrounding the loss of this plane 2) Credibility - CNN by itself is a reliable source. But also they provide links to outside articles on the page to corroborate their posting of the story. 3) Critical Thinking - Based on the information in the article you can deduce a lot about the plane and the issues with the search. I helps you think by mentioning important details and providing links to search for more information. 4) Copyright - This page itself was copyrighted in 2014. This article itself was posted on Sun March 16th, 2014. Meaning that it was updated today. 5) Citation - This site cites its references and provides links to them for additional information. 6) Continuity - Because of CNN's informational network this site can be updated within hours if not minutes. This up to date information provides room for new information to enter the article. 7) Censorship - This is posted and maintained by CNN so there is most likely some degree of censorship. But the comments can be posted immediately. However, if your post is tagged as offensive they will remove it. 8) Connectivity - This site is vastly interconnected both with corresponding articles on CNN.com and outside articles. It's easy to use and Easy to navigate. 9) Comparability - This page can be compared to many other pages. In fact, this article is the center of many websites referencing its information for reposting. 10) - Context - The scope of this page in context is a little biased. It tries to hint at the fact that the plane could have been hijacked and focuses on that speculation only giving a slight reference that the Ministry of Transportation has said that they aren't pursuing it that way but are looking into all of the information on why it deviated. Web Page Evaluation: Cur

1) Content - The content on this page is good. It can be easily read and understood. The layout allows it to be read while still adding adds for other related articles. It was uploaded 3/15 and updated later the same day. 2) Credibility - The Author itself I'm not familiar with, but it also appears to be an article by Reuters. Reuters is an organization that a lot of news agencies use and are widely trusted. 3) Critical Thinking - Because of their references and ties to Reuters you can with most certainly use critical thinking to assume this page is legitimate. 4) Copyright - The website it's self only says 2014 for the copyright. But this article itself was uploaded 3/15/14. Because of their copyright it can be assumed that this article is covered by it. 5) Citation - They do use some outside images and the text itself is from Reuters. But they credit them on the page so there is no infringement. 6) Continuity - This page can only be physically edited by the Huffington Post staff. So the continuity is withheld without errors. 7) Censorship - Because this page is moderated by Huffington post themselves there is a chance that it is edited. Also the comments system seem to be moderated in the regard that you can post what you want but if you offend someone the site admin can take it down. 8) Connectivity - The connectivity to the page is good. Many users can access it at the same time and it can be used as a jumping off point to either paid supported products or additional articles written by Huffington Post. 9) Comparability - You could take the information on this page and check it against numerous sources. I checked Google and came up with many results that either cite the beginning article or copy this article directly. 10) - Context - The context of this page is really good. They maintain the stance that Heineken and Sam Adams are taking without passing judgment, in support or not, for either the companies or the parade organize

1) Content - The intent of the content was to demonstrate the encroaching illness of Rev Fred Phelps. 2) Credibility - This seems to be a fairly credible source as the write (Doyle Murphy) also writes for the New York Daily News. 3) Critical Thinking - I am familiar with Rev Fred Phelps SR. from watching the protests of his church group on the internet. That being said, I have also seen numerous false death reports. Because of his (and his organization') reputation it is possible that someone is lying to create disbelief. 4) Copyright - The site itself was copyrighted in 2013, but this article itself was uploaded Sunday, March 16, 2014, 1:53 PM 5) Citation - This article includes citations from where it received the information and pictures. They also provide links in the article to easily access the original text. 6) Continuity - This article can be updated but only by the site admins itself. That means that it most likely has the most accurate information. 7) Censorship - This article appears completely uncensored. It includes some graphic language and images. Because of these points I can deduce that the facts are not altered. Also there is a moderated comments section but those posts appear uncensored 8) Connectivity - The site was easy to find and navigate to. It can handle multiple users at a time without issue. It contains links to the other parts of the page depending on if you want to continue reading on a different topic. 9) Comparability - I checked a couple different websites to see if they had a similar article. And they do. By checking other sites I can confirm that this is most likely a fact. 10) - Context - The context in this article tries very hard to just be neutral and factual about a man with such a horrible reputation. It does so decently, but the comments at the bottom do not. They are as inflammatory as some of the protest signs Fred Phelps is commonly known for. Web Page Evaluation: Currency - 10, Content

1) Content - The intent of the content was to demonstrate the encroaching illness of Rev Fred Phelps. 2) Credibility - This seems to be a fairly credible source as the write (Doyle Murphy) also writes for the New York Daily News. 3) Critical Thinking - I am familiar with Rev Fred Phelps SR. from watching the protests of his church group on the internet. That being said, I have also seen numerous false death reports. Because of his (and his organization') reputation it is possible that someone is lying to create disbelief. 4) Copyright - The site itself was copyrighted in 2013, but this article itself was uploaded Sunday, March 16, 2014, 1:53 PM 5) Citation - This article includes citations from where it received the information and pictures. They also provide links in the article to easily access the original text. 6) Continuity - This article can be updated but only by the site admins itself. That means that it most likely has the most accurate information. 7) Censorship - This article appears completely uncensored. It includes some graphic language and images. Because of these points I can deduce that the facts are not altered. Also there is a moderated comments section but those posts appear uncensored 8) Connectivity - The site was easy to find and navigate to. It can handle multiple users at a time without issue. It contains links to the other parts of the page depending on if you want to continue reading on a different topic. 9) Comparability - I checked a couple different websites to see if they had a similar article. And they do. By checking other sites I can confirm that this is most likely a fact. 10) - Context - The context in this article tries very hard to just be neutral and factual about a man with such a horrible reputation. It does so decently, but the comments at the bottom do not. They are as inflammatory as some of the protest signs Fred Phelps is commonly known for. Web Page Evaluation: Currency - 10, Content

1) Content - The intent of the content was to inform the readers that Sen. John McCaine thinks we need a more descisive plan for Russia. The author is clearly Identified. The content is serious. It was published on 03/16/2014 at 9AM PST. That would make it the most current edition. That is important because in the digital age information can change rapidly.

2) Credibility - The author is identifible but his reliability leaves me questioning. His only previous article listed on yahoo is one about Katy Perry's new cd being deemed a "Biohazard". The content itself is credible and posted on a valid news site. I just don't feel that he would be an authority on the matter.

3) Critical Thinking - I can identify the web page and have used it in the past. Also I see that there have similar articles posted on other news sites about this. Also he sites both The New York Times and CNN as references in the article.

4) Copyright - This page is copyrighted by Yahoo news. Any graphical contect is referenced to the original site it came from.

5) Citation - This website contains may references and they credit all of them. From the video being from Routers to the direct link to a NWY article.

6) Continuity - While it's true that the internet can change information in a manner of minutes. This article doesn't appear to have been changed since the time of publishing.

7) Censorship - This article is moderated to a degree. It's on Yahoonews so it has to be sent in and verified before publishing.

8) Connectivity - This is a publically available news site on the internet that doesn't require log in to view.

9) Comparaility - This page itself doesn't have a paper copy itself. however The New York Times (referenced in the article) does.

10) - Context - Contexually this was a valid article as my topic for this search was the US and Russia. This does have an open forum for comments to be posted after the article.

Web Page Evaluation: Currency - 15, Content -10, Authority -5, Navigation -10, Experience -8, Multimedia -10. Treatment -7, Access -5, Miscellaneous - 15. Total: 85 - Good.