Evaluation of Rhetorical Sources

In this blog post, I will be exploring further into a controversy in engineering using rhetorical sources.

"Domain Name System". 6/28/11 via Wikipedia. GNU Free Documentation License.

Source #1
Author/Speaker: The author of this article from the New York Times is Andrew C. Revkin. After clicking on his name on the site, it took me to 2,578 articles he also has written for the Times. I googled his name just for fun, and he has his own biography on Wikipedia. He attended grad school at Columbia for journalism and did his undergrad at Pace University as well as Brown. Revkin has 69,000 followers on Twitter and only follows about 6,000. Seems like a pretty credible author to me.

Audience: The audience for this is most likely those who are not only interested in the controversy with fracking, but have read about it before. It is titled "More Views on the Gas Rush and Hydraulic Fracking" suggesting the reader already knows about fracking and some views on it. Readers are probably well informed on the world around them and take an interest in things that don't directly affect them; they are able to see the big picture.

Context: This article was published on July 2, 2012 so it is pretty recent. It includes an image and lots of hyperlinking which increases its credibility. Like I said before, it is from the New York Times, an online newspaper.


Source #2
Author/Speaker: This talk radio segment is hosted by Neal Conan and includes guest speakers David Martin Davies and Jeff Brady. Davies is living in Texas and has covered the fracking boom that created a lot of jobs in the area he lives in. Brady is living in Colorado and is NPR national correspondent. He has been watching fracking in rural Colorado and Wyoming over the past few years. Both Davies and Brady have credibility because they are in the areas in which fracking is taking place.

Audience: The audience is most likely for people interested in not only fracking, but national news, possibly specific to news regarding the environment. Listeners are probably well informed on this issue because it doesn't really explain what fracking is, rather just jumps into the effects of it.

Context: This is a NPR talk show from June 2, 2011. It is very recent and very long. There is no hyperlinking or images obviously because you listen to it, not read it.


Source #3
Author/Speaker: Since this article is a blog post from word press, it was difficult (impossible) for me to find an actual name of the author. I can assume he/she lives in France because it is centered around fracking specifically in France. This could be a red flag, but the post is actually very helpful.

Audience: The audience here is mainly for the general public. It has conventions of a QRG (subheadings, hyperlinking, easy to read) so that's what lead me to that assumption. The post includes a 5 minute video explanation of what fracking is, so the readers don't even have to know what it is to find this source useful.

Context: This post is from April 7, 2015 so it is extremely recent and up to date. There is a youtube video, a screenshot from a verified Twitter account, and a few images. This increases the credibility.



Reflection
After reading Stef's and Zayla's posts, it made me think more about my own topic and less about theirs as backwards as that may sound. I think a personal attachment/interest to your topic is how you can be successful in researching and writing about. You kind of have to care about what you're spending time looking at. They had good sources though and they did a fine job.

Developing A Research Question

In this post, I will be looking at different controversies in the world of engineering. 3-4 questions will be listed below that I might want to explore deeper. 

Teer, Chad. "Offshore Platforms". 10/18/14 via Wikipedia. Attribution 2.0 Generic License.

1. Should fracking be permitted for petroleum engineering companies?

2. Are we causing global warming?

3. Should engineers be able to make weapons for military purposes?

4. Are the requirements to become an engineer/get hired as an engineer too extreme?

Reflection on Project 1

In this blog post, I will be reflecting on making my QRG.

"Reflection in a soap bubble". 2007 via wikipedia. GNU Free Documentation License.

• I feel like the main challenge I faced writing this was figuring out how to get my point across quickly and effectively. It's not as easy as it sounds trying to make something as complicated as genetic engineering into something average people will understand and want to read about. I struggled with making complicated things into simple things, in a fast, efficient way.
• I think I did pretty well with keeping it short and not going into unnecessary detail. Yes, it was a challenge but I'm proud of the ending result in this sense. I worked a lot trying to make this happen-retyping the same idea over and over until the right wording finally came to me was a big part of how this happened for me.
• I think using emotional appeal a little helped me get my point across when explaining the side against genetically engineering human embryos. 
• Social media didn't help me at all because there were no credible posts I could've used. People don't really tweet about an engineering controversy, and the engineers involved don't really (or aren't allowed to) share information on exactly what they're doing over Facebook.
• It was similar because of the drafting and editing process; it's pretty standard for a writing project.
• It was different because I never had to use this many sources or write a quick reference guide about anything before. It was something new and a lot of different aspects go into this genre.
• Research skills I developed will definitely be useful for other projects I might have because you pretty much need to research for anything you do; no one knows everything about a single topic.

Reflection

After reading the reflections of Austin and Grace, I felt better because they seemed to have a lot of the same struggles as I did. It's a new genre for all of us so getting to know how to write in this form was a challenge in itself. Then, adding all of the extra details and being able to effectively explain what your controversy was all about...it was a lot. I'm happy we all made it through and seemed to be successful with our final drafts. 

Project 1 Final

Here is the link to my completed QRG on the controversy in human genetic engineering. Enjoy!

Sullivan, Jon. "Great Fireworks Night". 9/1/09 via Public Domain Images. Public Domain License.

Clarity, Part 2

In this post, I will be sharing four more topics I read about in Rules For Writers.

Stitched, Vsio. "Clear Water Ball". 8/15/11 via Deviant Art. Attribution 3.0 License.

1. The section on Emphasis really interested me. I thought it was important for me to read about because often times I forget that my readers are not in my head, therefore they don't know what main point(s) I'm trying to get across. Also, the fact that this section told me what I had to do to accomplish this was really helpful rather than just telling me what emphasis is. 

2. The section on Wordy Sentences also was very useful to me. It's easy for me to get lost in the point I'm trying to make, resulting in a lot of run on sentences that really don't need to be that long. Focusing on how to make my sentences efficient and straight to the point will hopefully be easier for me after reading this section.

3. The section on Variety was helpful as well. I discussed this in my last blog post analyzing the longest paragraph in my QRG that I feel like my writing gets boring. I don't add enough variety to my sentence structures or even the words I use. It taught me to start my sentences with different words and structure them differently (long, short, complex, simple, etc.) in order to make my words flow better and make it more interesting to read. 

4. The section on shifts was something I had never really thought about much with my writing until I read it. It can be confusing switching from 3rd to 1st person and that can easily happen when I get on a roll writing. Simply being more aware and reading what I write out loud to myself after I'm done could definitely solve the problem. 

Identifying Basic Grammar Patterns

Here is a link to my longest paragraph in my QRG with basic grammar patterns identified.

Macintosh, Scott. "I Want YOU To Use Grammar". 7/14/11 via Deviant Art. Attribution 3.0 License.

After identifying some grammar patterns I have in the longest paragraph of my QRG, I realize that my writing is kind of boring structurally. I had to change a few sentences to add some variety in sentence patterns and also revise a little more to make it more interesting. So the main thing I figured out is to remember to make it engaging and different in structure so the paragraph has better flow. That's what I'll be working on.

Reflection on Project 1 Draft

In this post I'll be reflecting on my own rough draft of my QRG for genetic engineering in humans by answering questions given in A Student's Guide to First Year Writing.

I read and commented on Alex's and Chris's drafts.

McPhee, Nic. "Editing a paper". 01/26/08 via Flickr. Creative Commons License.

Audience

• My classmates and my instructor will definitely be reading my QRG.
• Their values and expectations will be for me to find out, I'm not sure what their thoughts on engineering controversies are so I don't know what to expect.
• I need a significant amount of background information for my topic as does anyone else doing something with science. I added a lot of background info on the first page.
• Casual, informal language would be just fine with my audience and for this genre as well.
• An informal tone would also be okay with my audience. I'm not sure if I have been consistent with it throughout my whole QRG, but I'll keep that in mind.

Context

• The formatting requirements include subheadings, white space, and images.
• Content requirements are basically enough information, but not too much so it's not too overwhelming for the readers. There should be an adequate amount of info to fully cover the topic.
• My draft does reflect the conventions of QRGs.

Clarity, Part 1

Richardson, Gary. "Three Clear Bubbles". 11/02/04 via Flickr. Attribution 2.0 Generic License.

In this blog post, I will be briefly discussing four topics regarding writing that I just read about in Rules For Writers.

Choose Appropriate Language: Choosing appropriate language is a key component of a good writing piece. I always feel as though I become a bit too casual with the words I use because I basically write how I talk to people. Reading this chapter reminded me that using the wrong language can even lessen your credibility as an author depending on the topic you're writing about and how you're writing about it.

Maintain Consistent Verb Tenses: This has been a little issue for me for as long as I can remember. It's very important to keep the same tense with all the verbs you use or else it literally doesn't make any sense. Sometimes I'm just on a roll with what I'm saying and the point I'm trying to make that I just forget what I started with, so this chapter was helpful for me.

Wordy Sentences: Like I said before, I tend to write as I talk to people which also causes problems with my sentences being long and maybe even not making sense as well. Reading this chapter reminded me to just slow down and read the sentences out loud to help me see if they make sense and/or are fairly easy to read.

Emphasize Key Ideas: It's easy to assume that the reader knows more than they do, frankly because it'd be a lot easier for the writer if they did. A lot of times, I feel as though I lack in my explanations and emphasis of key ideas in whatever piece I'm writing. I liked reading this chapter because it stressed the importance of making sure your reader knows exactly what ideas you're trying to get across without any doubt.


Reflection
I read through Chris's draft as well as Alex's. In Alex's draft, I found the following sentence to be helpful in thinking about how I should revise my own draft:

"You won’t have to get used to “speed of neutrinos” being used in popular culture - which could be the best news that comes out of this, as “speed of neutrinos” doesn’t have quite the same ring to it as “speed of light”."
I thought it was a really good use of the conventions of a QRG. It's super casual and relatable to the reader which is a huge part of QRGs.

These next sentences were in Chris's draft:

"Why do days and nights happen? Why do stars twinkle? Why does the world work the way it does?"
This was in the introduction of his post and I thought it was a great way to open his topic. I have been struggling trying to make a good hook/introduction in my draft, so I'm hoping this sparks some ideas!

Thoughts On Drafting

Before writing my first draft of my QRG on human genetic engineering, I looked at A Student's Guide to First-Year Writing to help me along. Here are some of the things that were useful to me.

"Writing with a pen". 5/26/11 via wikipedia. Creative Commons License.

Helpful Things from Student's Guide
One of the most useful things I read about in the book was what was said about organization. To make for an easy, casual read, it must be organized or else the readers definitely aren't going to want to read anything. Subheadings are a key way to keep the QRG organized and its also a convention of this genre.
Another thing that helped me especially was the part about the introduction. I never know how to start anything that is engaging or creative. I still don't know if I accomplished that in my first draft, but the book definitely helped me learn more about how I could make a hook to be interesting and fun.

Not So Helpful Things...
I think the section about illustration was the least helpful thing because that's not super important to QRGs as a genre. Pictures are absolutely supposed to be included but it's never the main focus when writing a QRG. So I could've done without reading about illustration.


Reflection
After reading Lia's post, I found some similarities with what we found helpful and not so helpful. She seemed very open to help so I feel like I could be a little more like her in that sense. She mentioned stuff about the explanations of the ideas in my QRG and I kind of overlooked that when writing my draft. After reading Grace's post, I felt like she was more like me in that she found fewer things helpful unlike Lia (it's great that Lia was able to get so much help from it).


Things I Need To Work On
1. I think I need to focus more on the introduction because that's the first thing the reader will read and I didn't put as much thought into it as necessary.

2. Adding more subheadings would also be helpful because it makes it more organized.

3. Explaining things better is also something I need to work on.

QRG Draft

This is the link to my rough draft of my quick reference guide regarding the controversy of genetic engineering in humans. Any feedback would be much appreciated, I'm not too sure how good this is...

"Michael scott business school". 2/21/07 via wikipedia. Creative Commons License.

Practicing Quoting

In this blog post, I will be practicing how to integrate quotes smoothly and effectively regarding the ideas of my controversy. Areas of the text will be highlighted to show what skills I am using and how effective those skills are.

This color shows the context I'm putting the quote in.
This color shows where I established the authority of the person I'm quoting.
This color shows where I had to modify the quote to put it in better context.
This color shows where my commentary and contextualization are.

QRGs: The Genre

In this blog post, I will be answering questions about quick reference guides as a genre and what it requires to be a QRG.

Daria. "Epicantus". 10/02/14 via Flickr.

1. Conventions of quick reference guides seem to be using images, hyperlinking, having subheadings,  and being informal, casual, or relatable.

2. The authors display being casual by dropping little jokes here and there and acting as if they were actually talking directly to the reader. Hyperlinking is used to basically replace a bibliography and have the links be their in-text citations. This allows the authors to save space and the reader's time by not going into great depth with the details and instead allowing their readers to read more only if they choose to. Images create breaks in the text, and aiding into not overwhelming the reader. They also make it more pleasing to the eye. Subheadings are like a quick view into what you'd be reading about, which also give the reader the choice of whether or not they want to know about that.

3. The purpose of these is to be informative, easy to read, and give more sources to the readers if they want to learn more about the topic.

4. The audience seems to be the general public as these include basic, but sufficient information about multiple different topics.

5. Quick reference guides use images to give the readers a visual, add emotional effect, and add breaks in the text so it's easier to scan through and not spend too much time in one place on the guide.


Reflection
After reading Zayla's and Michaela's posts, I felt good about what I wrote as the conventions of QRGs because they were basically the same things. Hyperlinking, imagery, subheadings, and informality were things we had in common in our answers. So, I basically was just reassured that the answers I had were correct.

Cluster of My Controversy

Below is a cluster of my controversy so to speak. Main ideas and questions raised regarding the controversy of genetic engineering in humans are recognized.

Potkonjak, Jovanka. "Genetic Engineering in Humans". 9/11/15 via Coggle.

Popular sources about this topic are mentioned as well as main issues people have with it.
No specific people are involved, but rather groups of people and companies. Many people are uninformed which is why scientists get a lot of hate for this new technology quickly approaching us.


Reflection
After reading and looking over Michaela's and Carrie Belle's blog posts, I realized theirs were both very organized and not too wordy. They were fairly easy to read and now looking at mine, I wonder whether mine is too hard to read or not. I think I made mine a little bit too heavy with words and bunched together...I hope it's not too bad.

Annotated Bibliography

The past 3 of my blog posts have all been analyzing different sources about this controversy in my field of study. Here's an annotated bibliography, in MLA format, of the six sources I focused on.

Azar, Sevda; Fazli, Maryam; Firoozian, Alireza; Helali, Farshid; Nami, Elmira; Zadeh, Neda. "Analysis of Ethical Challenges of Human Cloning and Investigation of Different Kinds of People Points of View on Genetic Science." European Journal of Experiemental Biology. 2014. Web. 3 Sept 2015.

This article was written to discuss the ethics of human genetic engineering and different people's views on it. It seemed to be written for people that have taken interest in this topic and for those studying this. People from around the world of different backgrounds, ages, and genders were interviewed and asked questions about whether or not they thought human genetic engineering was ethical. The findings were pretty small, leading to the conclusion that not many people know enough about this to make an educated opinion on it. I plan on using this article to prove that people need to be educated in these new processes coming quickly because they affect all of us.


Cooper-White, Macrina. "Scientists Genetically Modify Human Embryos For First Time. Are We Facing A New Era Of Eugenics?" Huffington Post. 24 April 2015. Web. 8 Sept 2015.

This article was basically an easier way to sum up the situation Chinese scientists started in March of this year; it was for the general public and easy to read. The basic idea of genetic engineering in human embryos was discussed and the conclusion came to be that there's nothing to freak out about, because we are a "long way from designer babies".


Cyranoski, David. "Ethics of embryo editing divides scientists." Nature. 18 March 2015. Web. 2 Sept 2015.

This article was written to inform us of the different opinions engineers and doctors have about human genetic engineering. It was taken from Nature, a popular scientific journal so it was written for the readers. There was no specific experiment or method used, it was mainly just to inform and spark conversation. I plan on using the article to explore different educated opinions on the controversy.


FHE Team. "Designer Babies." The Future of Human Evolution. 2015. Web. 3 Sept 2015.
This was written to inform people of the effect human genetic engineering has on the actual babies after they are modified. I believe it is for the future generations to come, as the authors mainly discussed the idea of having a 'designer baby'. There was no specific method used in this article, but I plan on using this to educate myself on the effects on the babies, because I'm honestly not that aware of them.


Mameli, M. "Reproductive Cloning, Genetic Engineering, and the Autonomy of the Child: The Moral Agent and the Open Future." Journal of Medical Ethics. Feb 2007. Print. 3 Sept 2015.

This source was created to use scholarly sources as evidence to the idea of human cloning and engineering and explore ethical issues that go along with that. It was definitely written for those who aren't very educated in this topic as it is mainly meant to inform. I plan on using this article and the facts in them as research to help myself know more about the field that I wish to go into.


Pray, Leslie A. "Embryo Screening and the Ethics of Human Genetic Engineering." Nature. 2008. Web. 4 Sept 2015.

This article mainly focused on the ethical issues surrounding human genetic engineering, rather than the facts about what it can do. It was written for Nature readers and anyone else interested in this area. Major findings and observations would just be the 2 ends of the spectrum people fall on; is this ethical or is this going against nature? I plan on using this source to learn more about what people think about genetic engineering in humans.


Sample, Ian. "Scientists Genetically Modify Human Embryos In Controversial World First." The Guardian. 23 April 2015. Web. 2 Sept 2015.

This article was written to inform its readers on the very recent modification of human embryos in China, which is interesting because it is such a traditional place so it was even more controversial than it already is. It was written for people interested in human genetic engineering. The major observations and findings are just that scientists and engineers came to China to start on this project to genetically 'fix' human embryos in hopes that it will cure disease or solve other problems. I plan on using this source to know more about current events in this topic.


Smith, Wesley J. "The Arrival Of Human Cloning." The Weekly Standard. 27 May 2013. Web. 9 Sept 2015.

This article was written when the idea of human cloning first emerged two years ago, and it was even more controversial then. It was written for the public in general, as it discussed not only the act of human cloning but the legal issues and politics that could come up in the future because of it. Major observations were mainly that it is extremely controversial to edit the human genome and even clone someone.


Stein, Rob. "Scientists Urge Temporary Moratorium On Human Genome Edits." National Publc Radio. 20 March 2015. Web. 9 Sept 2015.

This article was written to spark conversation and inform readers/listeners about human genome editing and why it brings up all these ethical issues. Major points and conclusions were that although it excites many scientists about what they are able to do and diseases they could be able to cure, it makes others nervous because editing the human genome is not socially ethical. I plan on using this to learn more about the controversy.


Reflection: 
I happened to look at two of the same citation styles, CSE, which are obviously not MLA so they definitely looked different than mine. It was funny because Austin's bibliography had one of the same 'designer babies' site that I had looked at, but I didn't use it in my bibliography. I did get a little worried when I saw that his wasn't in MLA like mine, but engineering has many different citation styles you can choose from. Bailey's bibliography was very thorough and I liked how she got straight to the point in her annotations; it was easy to read so maybe I should take a few tips from her!

Ideology in My Controversy

"Debate Logo". 1/11/2008 via wikipedia. Creative Commons License.

After all of the research I've been doing on the controversy in genetic engineering, here's a basic overview of everything going on...

The main people involved in this controversy are again, groups of people rather than individuals. Doctors, engineers, businessmen and women working at engineering companies definitely voice their opinions openly about this topic. Also, the writers and journalists that work for Nature, Nano Letters, and Advanced Materials have a big voice as well.

All of these people are pretty highly respected overall, you can usually expect that if you have a "Dr." somewhere in your name. So, people feel more comfortable trusting and believing intelligent people like the engineers and doctors, which gives them a bit of power. On one end of the spectrum, people value tradition and normalcy while on the other end, intelligence and research over everything else. Resources and evidence for these positions include recent lab experiments from the top labs in the world, various text books, and from engineers themselves working in this specific area.

Because the main voices are all on the same level in regards to their jobs and education background, a power difference isn't a huge issue with this controversy. The only thing would be is that the engineers that are actually specialized in genetics feel like they have a more relevant opinion than those who are specialized in something else. However, both sides agree that there's no stopping the ever increasing technology and possibilities that will make human genetic engineering easier. There isn't really an unacknowledged common ground. These 2 sides definitely listen to each other and aren't afraid, obviously, to disagree with one another.

Evaluation of Social Media Sources

In this blog post, I will be analyzing 2 sources which I found from searching "human genetic engineering". Here are the sources I found.

Source 1
The first source I found is taken from nature.com, one of the well respecting engineering journals mentioned in previous posts. So, I could already tell that this was a credible source simply because of that. I did some more research on the author and her name is Leslie Pray and has a PhD. It's difficult trying to find engineers who are very active on social media because that's just not in the job description. So, I couldn't find a Leslie Pray with a PhD on twitter...and no one was really talking about her either.
Regardless, the source is obviously credible and includes a short list of references they got their information from. Since this was written in 2008, I think we can rule out any amateurs being heavily involved. However, since this field is always making progress, the year 2008 may even be a little dated for a source on human embryo engineering.

Dmitry. "Social LongShadow Icons". 9/10/2014 via Deviant Art. Creative Commons License.

Source 2
This next source I found is from a site called Designer Babies and focuses more on the controversy. I searched for this on twitter and there were several people tweeting about it. Some tweeted links to CNN regarding the controversy which were helpful. But, those people tweeting didn't really have any background that I could see on their accounts in genetic engineering. The tweeters were mainly just one-time tweeters about this topic. There is also a short list of references on this source, which is another sign of reliability and credibility.

Evaluation of Scholarly Sources

I used Google Scholar and JSTOR to search for a couple of articles on human genetic engineering. Here's what I found...

Source 1

I searched "human genetic engineering" and "controversy" on Google Scholar to come to this essay. Its purpose was to discuss the depths genetic engineering has come to, with a focus on human cloning, and gather different thoughts from a variety of different people. These four students at the Islamic Azad University talked to people from different social classes, genders, ethnicity, and family situation to get the best overview of public opinion on genetic engineering. 

I'm assuming the essay was meant for those interested in the facts of human cloning and the human rights controversy that comes along with it. It was published at the European Journal of Experimental Biology in 2014 as an essay. Sources cited ranged from Nature and Cloning and stem cells to The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal.

Ricardi, Richard. "Human Genome". 12/28/2013 via Flickr. Creative Commons License.

Source 2
I searched for genetic engineering and human embryo and controversy on JSTOR and came up with this book, with only about 6 pages about what I searched for. The author, M. Mameli, focused on 2 main opinions on this genetic engineering in humans including human cloning, one in favor and the other against. The ethical line that would be crossed was a focus Mameli had.

This source was published in the book Journal of Medical Ethics through the British Medical Journal. The references made were from sources like the Harvard University Press, Oxford University Press, and various books on cloning, genes, and bioethics. The intended audience was again for people interested in the ethics of genetic engineering and perhaps students researching about it as well. 

Evaluation of General Sources

In this post, I'll be evaluating 2 articles about a controversy in engineering, my field of study. Most controversies in engineering revolve around genetic engineering, or modifying DNA in hopes of solving whatever problem is at hand.

Bock, Christopher. "DNA methylation". 2/18/06 via wikimedia. Creative Commons Attribution License.

Article 1

The first article I found, "Scientists Genetically Modify Human Embryos in Controversial World First", is from "The Guardian" which is a .com site. So, I was a little hesitant about its credibility until I looked further into the author. Ian Sample not only has worked as a science journalist for the "Institute of Physics" and "New Scientist", but he also received his PhD in biomedical materials from the University of London. Also, this was last updated on April 23, 2015 which is pretty recent. That definitely reassured me that this was a credible source.

Genetic modification has always been a controversial topic in the science world, especially when it comes to modifying human DNA; when ethical lines are being crossed is the real question here. Sample was trying to inform his readers of a situation in China where scientists had begun to modify human embryos. That definitely raised eyebrows as an infinite number of questions came up about everything from ethics to safety to passing down traits to offspring that were modified instead of actual family traits.

Sample doesn't seem to be that biased about the topic, I couldn't really pinpoint a side he was on. It was meant to inform and I think that he accomplished that goal. He includes quotes from legitimate sources from pro genetic modification as well as those against it. Also, the author include 2 links, one being to another article about this topic and the other being to a journal he got information from.

Article 2

This next article is called "Ethics of Embryo Editing Divides Scientists" and was taken from Nature.com, a respected science journal. It was last updated on March 18, 2015 so again, it's fairly recent. The author, David Cyranowski, has done work all over the Asian-pacific region writing and teaching, but he has always focused on stem cell research. Being an author for this journal also adds to his credibility. 

Like the previous article, this was focused on human embryo genetic modification. This author went more into detail about different scientists' views and the actual genetics. He listed different issues people had with this process including the forming of diseases from these modifications and the passing down of these modified (and possibly defective) genes. It's from a science journal so I didn't expect anything less. Several different scientists' quotes were included in this article along with a reference list directly under the article. 

In this article there doesn't seem to be a clear bias on the topic as quotes were again included from both sides of the spectrum. There's a list of related articles linked to their respected articles which would be helpful for the readers. It was overall pretty credible and not a huge point of view from the author, it was written to inform.