Jessica King

2/27/16
Source Evaluation
1. Vasseur, Estelle. The impact of natural selection on health and disease: uses of the
population genetics approach in humans. PubMed 10.1111 (2013): N. pag. PMC. Web.
26 Feb 2016.
Currency: The information in this journal article was published in 2013, therefore it is fairly
current. The information has not been revised or updated, but is factual and up to date because it
has been peer reviewed. My topic requires information among a particular timeline because it is
on evolution, which is small changes over time. All of the links are definitely functional.
Relevance: The information in this article relates heavy to one aspect of my question. My topic is
Is the human race still evolving? This article explains particular allele changes that have taken
place throughout the last twenty years that are consistent with evolutionary patterns. This article
is directed toward educated individuals looking to further their knowledge on a particular topic.
This article may be a little advanced for the audience of my paper, but I feel I can take the
information and put it in simpler terms for use in my paper. I looked at many, many sources
before deciding upon this one. I feel this would be a great source to cite in my paper.
Authority: The author/source/publisher can all be found in the MLA citation above. Estelle
Vasseur is a member of the Institut Pasteur and specializes in human evolutionary genetics. I
would she is definitely qualified to write on this topic. There is an e-mail address. The URL ends
in edu which shows it is for educational purposes.
Accuracy: The information comes from a database known as PubMed. The information is
extensively supported by evidence from multiple sources. The information has been peer
reviewed. I can verify the information from other sources listed at the bottom. The tone of this
article seems to be free of emotion and simply based on scientific findings. There are not any
grammatical/spelling errors that I can find.
Purpose: The purpose of this info is to inform and teach the reader about its subject. The author
and sponsors do not state the purpose, but it is clear. The information is factual. It makes
inferences from scientific evidence. The point of view is both objective and impartial. There does
not appear to be a form of bias.
I would rate this source at a 4 because it is based on fact, it gives lab results and large scale
examples that support the inferences, and has been peer reviewed by a reputable source.
However it gets docked due to the fact that the information may not be at an appropriate level for
my uses. Trying to quote particular pieces may confuse uninformed readers rather than help
them.
2. Templeton, Alan. Has human evolution stopped? PubMed 10.5041 (2010): N. pag.
PMC. Web. 27 Feb 2016.
Currency: The information was posted/published in March of 2010. To my findings, the
information has not been revised or updated. My topic requires information among a particular
timeline because it is on evolution, which is small changes over time. All of links are functional.

Relevance: The title is literally my topic, so Ill say it relatesslightly! The intended audience is
scholars. The way the info is worded as well as the level of vocabulary is awesome for my
purposes. I looked at a ton of sources before deciding on this one. I would definitely be
comfortable citing this source in my paper.
Authority: The publisher/author can all be found in the citation above. Mr. Templeton is an
expert on evolution and environmental biology at University of Haifa in Israel. The information
has been peer reviewed. The author is definitely qualified to have these views and make these
inferences. There is an email address for the author. The URL ends in edu which indicates an
educational source.
Accuracy: The information comes from personal knowledge gained over a long career as well as
many scholarly articles/scientific data. The claims/arguments made in this paper is well
supported by evidence. The information has been peer reviewed. All information provided can be
verified. The language/ tone appears to have a slight bias, but may simply come from strong
emotional beliefs that we are still evolving. There are no spelling/grammar problems that I can
find.
Purpose: The purpose of the information is to inform/persuade the reader into seeing why the
human race is still evolving. The information is opinion supported by fact. The information
appears to be objective. There does seem to be a cultural bias stemming from the fact that
(obviously) this person is a member of our species and doesnt necessarily want to admit that our
way of life is curbing our ability to evolve.
I would rate this source as a 5 because it is brought from a reputable source, the author has the
necessary background on the topic, is a good level for my purposes and fits my topic perfectly.
3. Ker, Than. Darwin's natural selection still at work in humans. Live Science. 2 Nov
2005. Web. 27 Feb 2016.
Currency: The info was posted November 2, 2005. The info has not been revised or updated. My
topic requires information from a timeline on human allele changes through history. The links are
functional.
Relevance: The information heavily relates to my topic. The intended audience is both education
seeking individuals as well as regular readers. The information is at an appropriate level for my
purposes. I looked at a few of the top picks on google and decided on this one as a good length
and a decent amount of relevant information. I would be okay with citing this source.
Authority: The author is Than Ker, the sponsor is LiveScience. The author has degrees from the
University of California, Irvine and New York University, including a masters degree in science
journalism. So I believe he is taking anothers findings and rewording them for LiveScience
magazine. I dont think this author is qualified to write about this. There is the authors twitter
for contact, but nothing else. The URL ends .com
Accuracy: Im not exactly sure where the information comes from. There is one link to a
website, however it is a homepage for a webpage and the author is not specific. The information
has not been peer reviewed. I actually believe there is an error in the information on the carrying
capacity of earth. It says it could be as high as 40 billion, but thats just dumb. The information

once again comes from an anthropocentric view (humans are most important) and has an
egotistical undertone of we can do no wrong. There are multiple grammatical errors.
Purpose: The purpose of the information is to inform/persuade the reader into seeing why the
human race is still evolving. The information is opinion supported by evidence. The information
appears to be slightly subjective, as in bias about our (human) ability to continue to evolve.
There is definitely a cultural bias stemming from the fact that (obviously) this person is a
member of our species and doesnt necessarily want to admit that our way of life is curbing our
ability to evolve.
I would rate this source as a 2 because it is not from a reputable source, the author doesnt have
scientific background, and there are grammatical/ spelling mistakes, which show me that there
was not adequate review/editing of this piece.
4. Taflinger, Richard. Social basis of human behavior: sex. Washington State University.
28 May 1996. Web. 12 March 2016.
Currency: The info was posted May 28, 1996. The info has not been revised or updated. My
topic requires information from a variety of time periods, therefore, the fact this piece was posted
in the 90s is not a problem. All of the links are functional.
Relevance: The information strongly relates to my topic. It supports a series of points I make as
to why the human race is no longer evolving. The intended audience is both students as well as
general readers. The information is at an appropriate level for my purposes. I looked at a few of
the top picks on google and decided on this one as a good length and a decent amount of relevant
information. I would be okay with citing this source.
Authority: The author is Richard Taflinger, and there is no sponsor. He created the article as a
website of its own attached to WSU. The author has a BA in Speech/Theatre, a MA in Drama,
and a PhD in Theatre, emphasizing Mass Media Theory and Criticism. I dont think this author is
qualified to write about this at all. On his website, he states he has an interest in
psychophysiological responses, but that is still not social science or even human mating. There is
the authors email address, but nothing else. The URL ends .edu
Accuracy: I believe the information is coming from the authors opinion/experience on such
things. There are only links back to Mr. Taflingers page. The information has not been peer
reviewed. The info matches up with personal knowledge but seems a little more opinion based
than research based. There is no evidence (studies, tables, graphs, details) supporting his
information. The information seems to be completely unbiased. There is no emotional injections
or anecdotes. There are no spelling errors that I can find.
Purpose: The purpose of the information is to inform the reader on human mating processes from
both a male and female perspective as well as humans compared to animals. The information is
opinion that is pretty logical. It all makes sense and I find it agreeable. The information appears
to be fairly objective. There does not seem to be a form of bias. It was written by a male and he
writes on why only human females can make conscious, informed decisions about her sex life
compared to any other living this on the planet. Which I found to be pretty cool. So hey, maybe
Im bias?

I would rate this source as a 3 because it supports aspects of my topic, is from what I would
consider a reputable source, and it is of an acceptable level for use. I docked points because there
are no citations or links. Also, its questionable if the author is qualified to write about this
subject.
5. Cleveland, Richard. (2015) Animal Diversity. London, France: McGraw Hill Companies,
Inc.
Currency: The book was published in 2015. This is a textbook periodical and they come out
with updated information every 3 years. My topic requires information from a timeline on human
allele changes through history. There are no links.
Relevance: The information heavily relates to my topic. The intended audience is scholars. The
information is at a slightly higher than an appropriate level for my purposes. I am a bio major
and this is my textbook for Animal Diversity which is essentially a class on evolution of animals
starting from spontaneous generation. I thought it would be a great book source that relates to my
topic. I would be okay with citing this source.
Authority: There are 5 authors for this book: Cleveland Hickman, Larry Roberts, Susan Keen,
Allan Larson, and David Eisenhour. The publisher is McGraw Hill Education. The information is
from the Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data. Im not sure what that means, but
it sounds official. The people who contributed to this are all experts. There is no URL.
Accuracy: The information comes from a variety of data bases that have been extensively
checked. There are no links. The information has been peer reviewed. I can verify this
information from class, as well as other sources. There is zero bias involved in the information
provided. I cannot find any grammatical errors. Im not convinced Id know if there was a
spelling error.
Purpose: The purpose of the information is to inform the reader on the ongoing process of
evolution. The information is fact. The information is completely objective. There is definitely
no bias involved.
I would rate this source as a 4.5 because it is for educational purposes, is produced by a reputable
source and relates directly to my topic. I took points because people from outside the magical
world of biology would not understand.