CRAAP 2. The Iroquois Nations of the Northeast

Title of the resource you are evaluating: The Iroquois Nations Of the Northeast
Currency: The timeliness of the information
Is the information (while perhaps historic) current or out-of-date? Has it been revised or updated?
For example, if an historical text refers to a minority group using what would be considered derogatory language, rate it not current.
Somewhat Current 3
Explanation: This information was published in 1998. So it has not been updated or revised enough. The links function perfectly and there is great information in the site.


Relevance: The importance of the information for your needs.
Does the information relate to your topic or answer your question? Is the information at an appropriate level?
For example, an elementary textbook would not be at an appropriate level and therefore not relevant.
Not Relevant 2
Explanation: The intended audience and is the person interested in this tribes. I would feel a little uncomfortable using this site because its not been updated. The topic branches off into different topics. It helps to understand the site a little better, but it is still a little fishy because you have no updates. 

Authority: The source of the information
What are the author’s qualifications to write on the topic?
For example, an anonymous author on Wikipedia has far less authority than a named author on a website sponsored by a university.
Authoritative 4
Explanation: The authority of the website is great. It has the Carnegie Museum of Natural History. I feel like this website has a great authority because a museum has created this, but I don’t see any contact information or a publisher or where to email questions. So that makes me question about the authority.


Accuracy: The reliability, truthfulness, and correctness of the informational content.
Where does the information come from? Is the information supported by evidence? Has the information been reviewed or refereed?
For example, information found on About.com is somewhat accurate because it is not supported by evidence and it is unclear whether the information is reviewed.
Somewhat Accurate 2
Explanation: The information seems to be very accurate and believable. The information is coming from the Carnegie Museum of Natural History, but it’s still a little weird because there is no information that says it has been reviewed, revised and no evidence is being shown.


Purpose: The reason the information was published
Is the information fact, opinion or propaganda? Does the point of view appear objective and impartial?
For example, an anti-Semitic website has an inappropriate purpose that shares biased opinion with the goal of disseminating hate.
Appropriate Purpose 3
Explanation: The purpose for the website is to inform. There are no authors though. The information is actually facts and is not biased in any sort of type. It’s main purpose is to inform.