Source 1 website

Solotaroff, Paul. "Animal Cruelty Is the Price We Pay for Cheap Meat | Rolling Stone." Rolling
Stone Magazine. N.p., 10 Dec. 2013,
http://www.rollingstone.com/feature/belly-beast-meat-factory-farms-animal-activists

1. Relevancy: This article gives a first hand look at what goes on in factory farming companys.
It is important to my research because there is insight of the harm the animals face and how
restrictive these big businesses are on what information is given to the public about the meat
packaging process. It also provides facts about the main points of the effects animal
agriculture causes.
2. Accuracy: There is bias because the reporter is getting his information straight from the
sources experience being undercover in one of these facilities and the reality was shocking
because of what was being seen.
1. Currency: This source is up-to-date. There is not evidence of any updates or changes, but I
think it is still really relevant and similar to the problems faced today with animal
agriculture.
2. Authority: Rolling Stone published his article I would say that as a writer he is qualified to
write a credibly, but I think that because he acquired his information right from the source it
makes his writing prevalent and appropriate for him to write about. Paul Solotaroff is a
former editor at The Village Voice and a journalist whose work has twice been nominated for
the Pulitzer Prize. He has written for a number of national magazines, including Esquire,
GQ, Vogue, and Rolling Stone.
3. Purpose: The purpose of this article is to inform the audience about what really goes n
behind the closed doors of animal farms. Paul Solotaroff wanted to tell the whole story and
experience of reporters who went undercover as workers in an animal farming factory. The
information is clearly presented, I think the information from the undercover workers was
really prevalent and unbiased in the sense that they were simply sharing their experience and
continued the article with facts about animal farming, at the end of it all I feel like it left the
reader shocked and fully helped the audience gain perspective.
4. Rating: I would rate this 5 out of 5 considering all of my sources. The information given is
really irrefutable and not written necessarily bias by the author but more factual.

Source 2 SA

Hoekstra, Arjen Y. "Water Footprint Accounting." Water Accounting (n.d.): n. pag. PNAS, 28
Feb. 2012,
http://waterfootprint.org/media/downloads/Hoekstra-Mekonnen-2012-WaterFootprint-of-
Humanity.pdf

1. Relevancy: The source does relate to my topic, it is about water consumption and other
effects caused by animal agriculture. It supports my topic with multiple statistics and graphs
that show exactly how the resources use for factory farming are substantial and the final
product through this process is not compensating for the damage being done.
5. Accuracy: This source is full of information from research and statistics, because of that I
wold say that it is unbiased. It is not necessarily giving any type of opinion, it is very factual.
6. Currency: Though this source is exactly five years old I think the information is still
consistent, if anything I would say it could be updated because I think the statistics would be
worse than it was five years ago.
7. Authority: Arjen Y. Hoekstra has a PhD degree in Policy analysis and a MSc degree in civil
engineering. He has led a variety of interdisciplinary research projects and advised
governments, civil society organizations, companies and multilateral institutions like
UNESCO and the World Bank. His background qualifies him to write this article.
Proceeding of the National Academy of Science (PNAS) which only post submission that
been both peer reviewed and approved for publication.
8. Purpose: The articles purpose it to explain the water footprint in the world and how animal
agriculture has huge water footprint and it puts in to question the true consequences of
industrial production. Its really the thought of how far are we as humans on this earth willing
to over consume. I don't think there are any facts that were purposefully omitted from this
article.
9. Rating: I would give this a 3 out of 5. It is a strong article because it is solely based on one
aspect of animal agriculture and the immediate effects on our environment.

Source 3 website

Harari, Yuval Noah. "Industrial Farming Is One of the Worst Crimes in History." The Guardian.
Guardian News and Media, 25 Sept. 2015,
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/sep/25/industrial-farming-one-worst-crimes-history-
ethical-question

1. Relevancy: This source directly relates to my topic. It explains the history of the agricultural
revolution and how by our societies decision to mass produce we interfered with the worlds
ecosystem. It also speaks on the cruelty of domestication and the extreme overlook by our
government of the animal abuse within factory farms.
10. Accuracy: I would say this article is bias, but at the same time it definitely provides ideas of
what people who are pro animal farming would apply to the idea. It specifically talks about
the positive side of animal agriculture, saying that the animals live a better life compared to
the obstacles they would face in the wild, but also explains the side of the in prisoning of
animals which only leads to death at a slaughter house.
11. Currency: Yuval Harari source is relevant and up-to-date. It is only two years old and still
points out the main concerns of my topic.
12. Authority: Yuval Noah Harari is an Israeli historian and a tenured professor in the
Department of History at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He wrote Sapiens: A Brief
History of Humankind. Which talks about our past as humans and how we got to be where
we are today in the modern world. The guardian posted his article and because of his
publication and knowledge of our past I would say that he is capable and informed about
industrial agriculture.
13. Purpose: The article is about the problems involved with animal farming especially the
amount of abuse these animals face before being slaughtered and the quality of life they live
within these farms. The article is written in kind of a historical point of view, explain how we
got to this point in animal production and the effects we faced from the start.
14. Rating: I would rate this article 2 out of 5. Yuval gives a lot of pertain information and gives
both sides of the argument somethings to think about.

Source 4 SA

Weida, William J. Considering the Rationales for Factory Farming (n.d.): n. pag.
www.sraproject.org. 5 Mar. 2004,
http://www.sraproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/foundationsofsand.pdf

1. Relevancy: This article talks about CAFO which explains a lot more of the political side of
my topic. It explains what exactly the laws are and puts into question wether or not
restrictions need to be made and some rules to be changed because of the mass production
that is industrial animal farming.
15. Accuracy: This article is accurate, William Weida has sources to back up the information
explained.
16. Currency: I would say this source is out of date because it is 13 years old, but the article
explains laws dealing with CAFO and I believe that these laws are barely changed
throughout decades even so I think that it is current in a sense.
17. Authority: I do not know how reliable this author is, it shown that they have published a
few books.
18. Purpose: The articles purpose is to inform the reader about what CAFO is saying and what
they are realistically doing and how they are cutting corners as far as the law. It explains a lot
what CAFO considers acceptable and how the government is really doing anything to change
it.
19. Rating: I would give this a 1 out 5. Compared to all of my sources this is the least reliable
one and format is a lot different than other scholarly article i have seen.

Source 5 BOOK

Miller, Debra A. Factory Farming. Farmington Hills: Greenhaven Press, 2013. Print

1. Relevancy: Yes, this source is helpful for my research. It is a well rounded source that tries
to put all points into perspective for both the opposing and the advocators. It is a realistic
source that answers questions for both sides.
20. Accuracy: The source is accurate, I do not see any bias in the text. I would say the
publication also helps with the verification of accuracy of the book.
21. Currency: I think this source is current, it is only four years old.
22. Authority: Debra A. Miller lead the Public Relations Society of America and was reared
The Gold Anvil award. She has had years of experience with public relations, she is very
capable of explaining how certain things effect our society.
23. Purpose: The purpose of this book is to inform the audience. It is presented from multiple
views which helps with understanding the reality of this industry. I would say the
information is clearly sated and all of the important information is touched on as far as what
industrial farming is and all of the effects. I would say the audience is the general public.
24. Rating: I would give this a 4 out of 5 overall rating because it is a well rounded book that
hits on all of the key details of m topic and tries to include both sides opinions/questions.