Website Review for Research Efforts

When deciding about the sources that I thought would be relevant to the topic of my argumentative paper, I attempted to use multiple types of sources as well as different website domain endings; such as .com, .edu, .net, .gov, .org.

            One of the first places that I looked for a reputable source was the library data base’s online references. The librarian explained to us that those sources were verified multiple times to evaluate the validity of the material, and the source itself had a link or website that ended with “.org”. This archive claimed that they were “the source for great research…”, and with the ease of finding a related article plus the added bonus of the library’s support, I determined that this source would be reputable/ credible. This source provided a plethora of background information, with quotations and an extensive ‘references’ page at the end. One downside of this source was the large amount of background information regarding pollution, and had to be sifted through thoroughly as I was gathering information.

            The second source that I chose was also one which ended in “.org” and was a research based site called “The Center for Biological Diversity”. I chose this site because of the appearance of validity that it provided, the amount of facts that were referenced or quoted, and because of the information that was provided regarding interactions between that organization and the United States Environmental Protection Agency. I found that source to be simple and yet very descriptive with the topic of pollution, the causes, consequences and solutions. This source was also easy to read and comprehend the material that it presented to its readers.

            The third source that I chose was one that belongs to the City of Fort Collins, CO. I chose this source because the topic of my paper derived from a local law that was passed recently. The city’s website is referenced as “.com” but the source is the local city government, so I felt somewhat confused as to why it wasn’t labeled as “.gov”. The source in consideration with its validity or accurate information was superior and would be considered a primary source. I found factual information that I considered to be reliable, which is why I chose to use that source.

            The final source that I chose was one that presented an opposing view to my argumentative claim. I had a difficult time trying to find a source that was reputable, so I relied more on my intuition in regards to the author’s background information. The last site was a “.com” website, and was put together as a crusade against local and statewide plastic bag bans. I found the author to be credible because he was a Federal Government employee for the past forty years. The author also did more than simply oppose the bans due to other arguments that I came across during my research. Most of the opposing claims said things such as; “It takes away our personal freedoms!…. It’s unconstitutional!” I found those claims lacking any follow up or options for a resolution. This author spent a majority of the article explaining causes of pollution as well as many different options to reduce waste and prevent further pollution, and that is why I chose to reference his website in my counter claim.

            I wished that I would have found more sources with different domain endings; however the four that I chose appeared to provide a sense of validity as well as a solution to a problem I was attempting to address.