Evaluation of General Sources

futureatlas.com. "Citation needed" 10/30/10 via Flickr. CC Attribution Generic

Sources for research come in all different forms. While the inner procrastinator in you might reach for the Wikipedia app, what does it really mean to find and record a good source? Let go into details, from URL to the links themselves. What questions do you have about sources? 

I am building a list of questions to ask regarding sources in general. For this post, I'll be using two of my own sources for an Aerospace controversy on space exploration. One, Viewpoint: The Debate About The Future Of Human Spaceflight – 30 Years On and the other Linking NASA and the private sector to further space exploration.

• URL: 
• Viewpoint: http://aviationweek.com/space/viewpoint-debate-about-future-human-spaceflight-30-years. A .com domain name, implying that the source might not be from a completely reputable location, such as a government or educational site.
• Linking: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/federal_government/linking-nasa-and-the-private-sector-to-further-space-exploration/2015/01/22/d022b34e-a24b-11e4-9f89-561284a573f8_story.html. Also a .com domain, suggesting it might not be a reputable site, which would require more research.
• Author
• Viewpoint:  Marcia Smith is the President, Space and Technology Policy Group, LLC, confirmed through the SpacePolicyOnline website.
• Linking: There is no named author for this source, only a group called the Partnership for Public Service. 
• Last Updated
• Viewpoint: Published 1/8/15 with no further updates, or any way to tell if the facts presented in the article are out of date. The two links on this site lead to one history report on the NASA website, and the other to a login page for Aviation weekly, which I will assume has broken the link, or changed its purpose at the very least.
• Linking:  There are no links within this article.
• Purpose
• Viewpoint: The purpose of this article is to persuade the reader to more cautiously support government funded programs for space exploration, but slower to avoid risk to human life. She is trying to promote a different way of viewing our space program.
• Linking:  The purpose of this article is to inform the reader of the current link between private companies and the U.S. space program. The author is promoting the idea of a further relationship between private companies and space exploration.
• Graphics
• Viewpoint: No graphics.
• Linking: No graphics
• Position on Subject
• Viewpoint: Smith's position on the subject is not biased, but overly cautious in not trusting companies to effectively explore space, while simultaneously worrying about previous space failures and glamorizing their ideas in the past that didn't receive funding. She does not receive profit if the reader believes her version of the story is true, but she may receive more reader attention if the data is true. The information can be verified with outside sources, such as the cost of the ISS. 
• Linking: This story doesn't take a stand on the differences between private and government space exploration, but rather positively talks about the relationship between private flight and exploration. Many of the facts can be backed up by outside sources, such as the budgetary constraints of certain NASA programs here. 
• Links
• Viewpoint: This source does not cite any further reading or links besides the reports mentioned in the article. The only credible resources the article has is the author herself, who is the president of a space focused organization.
• Linking:  This source doesn't mention further reading besides the Washington Post and has no real credibility or sources to fact check the article.