“Specific Page Title or Article Title”  Ex: “Twilight: A negative influence on teens or just harmless fun?”	Social websites harm children's brains: Chilling warning to parents from top neuroscientist
Primary Contributor to the Website (if given) (author, editor, producer, etc) Ex: POV	David Derbyshire
Title of the Entire Website (not www. )  Ex: CBC News	Mail online
Publisher or Sponsoring Organization of the website (if given) Ex: CBC
Date Page was Last Revised Ex: 10 September 2010	24 February 2009
Date You Read It Ex: 21 January 2012	12 February 2012
<URL address> (ALL of it) Ex: <http://www.cbc.ca/news/pointofview/2010/09/twilight-is-a-negative-influence-on-teens-or-just-harmless-fun.html>	http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1153583/Social-websites-harm-childrens-brains-Chilling-warning-parents-neuroscientist.html

FIVE FACTS FROM THE SOURCE (Embedded): EX: The article cites Maria Nikolajeva, a professor of at Cambridge, as saying that Bella does not "in any way promote independent thinking or personal development" in women, instead portraying a woman "meek and willing to do anything for her vampire boyfriend" (POV).

The article talks about how social websites make kids and teens have a shorter attention span and makes them self centered.

Some psychologist and neurologist suggest that the social network is doing more harm than good.

The article also states "Lady Greenfield told the Lords a teacher of 30 years had told her she had noticed a sharp decline in the ability of her pupils to understand others".

Although the article shows the negative it also says "Psychologists have also argued that digital technology is changing the way we think. They point out that students no longer need to plan essays before starting to write - thanks to word processors they can edit as they go along".

This also states how Sue Palmer said 'We are seeing children's brain development damaged because they don't engage in the activity they have engaged in for millennia".

Summary of Source (Three-Four Sentences of the Who, What, Where, Why, and How in your own words. NO OPINION): 

EX: POV brings together information from a Cambridge conference in which professors of literature examine Twilight's effect on teenagers. Many of the sources cited talk about the negative affect on women that the books have had.  The writer then turns around and asks the reader to take a poll, which is noted as not being scientific, to see what the general populance thinks on this issue. 

The article shows that the social media is shortening the attention span of kids and teens. This has been tested by many psychologist and neurologist. 

Credibility of Source: 

Author or Site: Who is the author? What training have they had? If there is no author, examine the site. What is the purpose of the site? Who funds the site? 

EX for Author: POV is simply a penname for an anonymous author. It stands for Point of View, and the majority of the articles written on the news cite are simply there to ask the opinion of the reader, and rehash someone else's research. 

I think the author is stating his opinion and evidence that shows why the social media is bad. 

EX for Site: CBC News is one of the main news associations in Canada, and the purpose seems to be to bring the news to the people. The articles are meant to inspire discussion, not so much force an opinion. 

This website seems trustworthy because the author shows where he gets all his sources and what the people said.

Attachment: Does the author or site have anything to gain from writing this, or is it simply informative? For example, is it a cigarette business posting an article about the benefit of cigarettes, or is it a scientific community unaffiliated with the cigarette business? 

EX: Other than keeping a job with the Canadian News, it seems the variety of articles displays a lack of attachment. 

I doubt the website has anything to gain from this article.

Bias: Do you detect a bias (a favoring of either side) in the author's writing? 

EX: There is a slight bias in the fact that only the negative effects of Twilight are mentioned, not the positive. 

There is a slight bias in the fact that it only states one negative comment.

References: Does the author cite references in the writing? If so, do these add or take away from the credibility? 

EX: The author uses Cambridge professors in his/her argument, making it stronger, as they are professors of literature. 

The author does site his sources, thus his credibility for me goes up.

Use of Source: How will you use this source in your project? 

EX: I plan to use this source to support my opinion that Twilight has a negative effect on teenagers, and also use it as a jumping off point for other sources, as it has a link to an MSNBC article about this issue.

I plan to use these article on how social media effect us by shortening our attention span.