Determine what credentials they have to be considered a “qualified” writer-why do you think they are qualified?
When was the article published (print) or the information posted/updated (internet)?
Brief summary of the information presented (main idea of the article).
Critique the information or data provided in each of your articles. Is it good or bad information? i.e.- valid? Backed up by experts and studies or not? Slanted or both sides of the topic presented? Trying to sell something (point of view, supplement, diet plan, etc)… or not? Useful to the reader? Etc. Support your arguments. Why should we believe this information? Focus on how the information is presented, how valid it is (not your opinion of the topic). What would you do as a journalist to improve the validity/usefulness of the article?
After you have completed the two article critiques, next do the comparative critique:
* For the comparative critique:
Review both the print version and the Internet version of your topic– discuss which of the two versions appears to be more accurate and/or credible, and why. Which article used more references/studies, quoted more experts? Which article had less slant? Which author is more credible and why?
Discuss which features you liked or did not like about the articles, in comparison.
Would you recommend either of these two articles as a source of valid nutrition information to the general public? Explain why or why not.
