1. Kinds of sources: Books, magazines and articles.
.
2. Types of information: Formal factual accounts of the Cossack era or the current events surrounding the Cossack issues.
.
3. Purpose of publications: Mostly to inform. Some to persuade.
.
4. Documentation: Well documented and researched. Proof in the extensive bibliography and reference list.
.
5. Credentials and expertise: Most authors are unknown but one article it shows the author’s credentials in the field.
.
6. Publishers: All the articles have different publishers, with some that clearly show a historical and educational purpose. I have two books that were published by a university. The article I have from a magazine has tons of advertisements which makes me skeptical about its credibility.
.
7. Dates of publication: All the articles I have are recent, ranging from 2000-2006. Though they deal with mostly recent events. The books I have are older, some in the early 1900s.
.
8. Objectivity: All the articles and book are meant to inform except the book I have on Cossack folk-tales. That book is meant to entertain.
Comments:
Andrey's Writing Blog 
It’s neat that you have magazine articles as sources for your topic. I also like that you are including folk-tales in your sources. Why is it that a lot of the authors are unknown? Was it taboo to write about your topic? If not, then I would be a little bit skeptical about your sources.
[…] Comment links: https://andreysnurnitsyn.wordpress.com/2010/04/19/evaluating-sources-2/#comment-2 http://lopezteresa.wordpress.com/2010/04/20/research-journal-entry-1/#comment-3 […]
Andrey,
Thats funny what you said about your source from the magazine with all the advertisements, I have a few of those and its pretty annoying.
A very honest review of the sources, note skepticism when you find it relevant, it encourages the pursuit of scholarly truth.
[…] https://andreysnurnitsyn.wordpress.com/2010/04/19/evaluating-sources-2/#comment-7 […]