Identify Evaluation Criteria

Creative Commons licensed image posted at Flickr by bedroom.eyes

Creative Commons licensed image posted at Flickr by bedroom.eyes

Start a document and track the results of each step below.


  1. Use at least two different search engines and look for websites that help you “evaluate resources.” You might also search for criteria using the phrase “scholarly sources” as well. You might want to add the name of your course, department, field, or disciplines to your search terms; you might find discipline-specific criteria as well.
  2. Identify two criteria lists you think would be useful to evaluate your sources. Why do you think these lists are good/useful?
  3. Identify at least one list that you don’t think is good or complete? Briefly describe why.
  4. Share-out: Copy/paste or upload your resulting lists and reflections to the comments.

8 thoughts on “Identify Evaluation Criteria

  1. Claire

    The two websites I used were University of Colorado Boulder and Bedford/St Martins. I think both of these lists were good because the tips on how to evaluate were clearly written and easy to follow. I think Bedford was better than Colorado’s because the list seemed to be more specific to the work being presented, where as Colorado’s seemed more general. A list that I don’t think would be good to use is George Mason University’s list on how to evaluate because it seems to be a lot more tedious and difficult to interpret compared to the other two. And what types of information to look for isn’t sorted.

    Attachment:  Lists.docx

  2. Davis Moore

    I used Google and Yahoo and added Formula Frame and Suspension as my criteria lists.I dont think Mechanical Engineering would be a good list because it would be too broad. My too lists were [Automotive]SAE – FSAE Suspension and Frame Design and The design of a Formula Student race car: a case study.

  3. Dustin Whiddon

    The two search databases I used were AccessScience and Engineering Village, I then narrowed my search field to the Mechanical Engineering dept. As far as Criteria to search for, I like SAE BAJA suspension, and SAE BAJA frame analysis/design. These two in particular are most directly related to what I have been assigned to work on within the BAJA group. Criteria that would not be useful would be any articles involving BAJA racing, in general, but not adhering to the guidelines set forth in the SAE.

  4. Aaron Van de Graaf

    The two databases that I used were ScienceDirect and Engineering Village. I added mechanical engineering into the search, for the discipline. Two criteria lists that I think will be useful to evaluate my sources are formula cars and aero/fluid dynamics. The reason that I think these sources would be useful, is because they are specifically meant for the engineering/science behind the topic. One list that I don’t think would work with these two sources would be the foundations of a certain invention. Since these sources are meant specifically for the science/engineering behind a topic, I doubt that they would be able to tell you much about the historical events that led up to this invention, nor the progressions over the years.

  5. Cameron

    The two search engines I used are Accessscience and Engineering Village. I input my department, Mechanical Engineering, as a primary guideline. The first criterion is that no source should contain information about any other thermodynamic cycle than Rankine. These other cycles are simple not applicable. Secondly, each source should, with respects, have something to do with fluid flow. Fluid flow through the turbine is essential to understanding this project. Each list of sources on each search engine meets most of the criteria. Obviously sources unrelated to the topic are thrown out immediately. A poor criteria of these sources is the history of the bladeless turbine. This will not benefit our primary goal: the design.

Comments are closed.