Bailey Beland

Professor Gutierrez

UL100B

24 March 2019

Sources

Dean, Joshua. “Methane, Climate Change, and Our Uncertain Future.” Eos, 11 May 2018,

www.eos.org/editors-vox/methane-climate-change-and-our-uncertain-future. Accessed 19 Mar

2019.
1. Relevancy: This article talks about how methane can harm the environment. It supports my
argument in that it contributes to my concern that methane is not the best source of energy for
the environment.
2. Accuracy: This article is a little biased towards the bad qualities that methane provides but the
author also provides statistics to support their claims. The author quotes many studies and
articles throughout their talk to help support their claim. The information seems to be based on
fact rather than opinion and is free from errors.
3. Currency: The article was written within the last year. The age of this article is current but since
this is a science-based research article it is important to use up to date article because science is
always changing, and new research is always coming out.
4. Authority: Joshua Dean is a professor at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, a university located in
The Netherlands. He has written journal articles about this subject before and is answering
questions that many individuals seem to have. The website this article was published on is a
website that is a leading source about the Earth and Space sciences.
5. Purpose: This article is to inform and answer questions that people have about methane’s
impact on the environment. All the information that the author provides is clearly laid out for
the reader and those curious about methane.
6. Rating: I would give this source a 5. It provides a lot of information for my topic and provides its
sources throughout the article. The source also has no problem laying out ho the author is and
also provides the authors credentials. It is a well written article overall.

Stokstad, Erik. “Will Fracking Put Too Much Fizz in Your Water?” Science, vol. 344, no. 6191,

June 2014, pp. 1468–1471. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1126/science.344.6191.1468. Accessed 19 Mar. 2019.

1. Relevancy: This article relates to my topic because it talks of the impacts methane and fracking
have had on people who live next to oil and natural gas wells. It supports my topic and gives me
more personal insight on the effects it has not only on the environment but on humans too.
 2. Accuracy: This article is very direct and easy to understand. The author of this article just lays
out the facts with little to no bias. He is basically just retelling the stories of those affected by
methane pollution and the dangers it can cause.
3. Currency: This article was written in 2014, so within the past five years. Although if it were out
of the five-year range, I would argue that it is still relevant to future research because it is an
article that described what happened to those people who had their water contaminated.
4. Authority: Erik Stokstad is an environmental researcher and reporter. He has written for
magazines like Science Magazine and continually writes articles that pertain to natural resources
and sustainability.
5. Purpose: This article’s purpose is to inform the reader about what is happening to those who
have already been affected by methane. It is to bring attention to those individual’s stories while
informing the reader about the negative side affects methane can have in large quantities.
6. Rating: I would give this article a solid 5. It does not really have a bias and refers to where the
information is coming from. It is also a peer reviewed journal article from the library so that also
helps this article’s credibility.

Fox, Josh, director. Gasland. International WOW Company, 2010. Accessed 19 Mar. 2019.

1. Relevancy: This is a film about how fracking affects the environment. Josh Fox also goes and
interviews the individuals affected by methane and fracking. This source supports my argument
and gets more personal with the one on one interviews he has with the residents.
2. Accuracy: The bias is there but it is a film against the use of fracking. Fox’s bias is seen when he
is talking about Dick Cheney when he exempted companies from the Clean Air and Water Acts.
His representation of fracking is thorough research.
3. Currency: This film is nine years old but is still very relevant. His findings are not outdated
because a lot of it are the experiences that the residents had.
4. Authority: He is an environmental activist and is very active in the fight against hydraulic
fracturing. He has done extensive research on this subject and has won awards for this film.
5. Purpose: This film is to inform the audience about the inner workings of fracking. It is also about
the ways it can be harmful towards not only the environment but towards the human body. This
film is only from the view of how it is harmful.
6. Rating: I’d give this a four. The film is very thorough about how fracking works and the history of
fracking. Fox does a good job presenting about why fracking is bad.

Bevan, James (@JamesBevanEA). “The fact is that we won’t have long term water security unless all of
us change our behaviour. We all need to use less water and use it more efficiently.
#WaterwiseConference2019.” 19 Mar. 2019, 5:52 AM. Tweet.

1. Relevancy: This tweet is referring to a talk about London banning fracking. He is asking that we
conserve our water sources while being smart about it. This is relevant because this has
happened within the last few days.
2. Accuracy: The is definite bias in this tweet. He is obviously for the better use of water and
keeping it clean. He calls for the better usage of this precious resource.
3. Currency: This tweet is only a few days old. This tweet is creating awareness for an issue that is
happening right now. This is calling attention to something that is a problem right now.
 4. Authority: James Bevan is the Chief Executive of the Environmental Agency in England. He has
tons of knowledge about this subject and is a reliable source. He is considered an expert in his
field.
5. Purpose: This tweet is to call our attention to London’s vote on fracking. He wants us to be
aware of what is happening and wants the people of London to make their MPs go to this
hearing. The purpose of this tweet is to inform.
6. Rating: I’d give this source a 3. Just because it does not provide a lot of information. But it does
force the audience to do more research about what he is talking about to gain an opinion.

Overholt, Mark. “The Environmental Benefits of Fracking.” Tiger General, 12 July 2016,

www.tigergeneral.com/the-environmental-benefits-of-fracking/ . Accessed 23 Mar. 2019.

1. Relevancy: This source relates to my topic because it is about the other side of the argument.
This article is about supporting fracking and how it fine to use. It also talks about how fracking is
good for the economy.
2. Accuracy: This article is biased towards the use of fracking. It says that fracking is completely
fine and that fracking only has a ton of stigmas around it and that is why it has a bad reputation.
The data used in the article seems legit. There is a source from Yale. But when you click on the
link, it only brings the reader to an article talking about Yale’s study, not the stud itself.
3. Currency: This source is only three years old. It is very up-to-date. It provides current reasons as
to why fracking is fine,
4. Authority: Mark Overholt is not the most qualified. He runs a business that provides services to
oil ad gas companies but that is as far as his credentials go.
5. Purpose: The purpose of this article is to inform the reader about why fracking is nothing to be
concerned about. He does this by providing articles and info surrounding the subject. He is very
articulate in his writings.
6. Rating: I’d give this article a 3. It provides a ton of into as to why fracking might not be so bad,
but the credentials don’t really match up with the info being provided. That is why this article is
being given a 3.

Hydraulic Fracturing: Banning Proven Technologies on Possibilities Instead of Probabilities: Hearing

before the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, House of Representatives, One
Hundred Fourteenth Congress, First Session, April 23, 2015. U.S. Government Publishing Office,
2017. EBSCOhost,
emporiastate.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=c
at06945a&AN=emp.b1479015&site=eds-live. Accessed 24 Mar. 2019.

I do not have it yet, but it is in the library and is available.