How is the information structured and presented? Who is it meant for?

How is the data organized and presented? Who is it intended for?

Is it communicated effectively and in the appropriate language for its purpose? The material is well-organized, with numerous subheadings that are simple to understand.

For religious audiences, the language is highly expressed and precise. The source is not properly organized. It lacks detailed information. The language is straightforward and simple to understand.

The article is brief and intended for all audiences, particularly religious and non-religious ones. What is the information mainly about? Look at the introduction or overview - does it cover what you need to know?

Is it at the right level? Is it too specialised, or not specialized enough? The source is much detailed with a significant amount of relevant information which explains about religious belief and pain relief. Yes, the information provided covers what the audiences need to know. The relevance is intact.

The source is much specialized and provides enough arguments on the pain reliever. The information is about Pain. Showing how people with a firm belief in God can increase people's capacity to endure pain.

It covers what the audience needs to know transparently and straightforwardly. Though no much of research is incorporated. And does not tell us what was carried on the original study.

Objectivity

Is the author's position of interest made clear? Is the article biased, or motivated by a particular opinion or agenda?

Is the language emotive? Are there any hidden, vested interests? What may they be trying to sell? The author interest is evident- the view is very confident at the outset and precisely to the research made on the pain relief between the religious and non-religious groups.

There is an inner motive of the writer is trying to sell the religious group, especially in the Catholic dominion. The author attempts to show the superiority of the endurance of pain towards the religious group The author is not very clear at the outset of the article to the research made on pain relief between the two groups

The author is trying to sell the idea of a perfect religion especially the Catholic no wonder the Anglican bishop comments on it.

Method (for research reports only)

Is it clear how the data was collected?

Is the sample size (the number of subjects involved in the study) really representative?

Were the methods used appropriately? Do you trust them? The collection of data is stated as experimental. The research study is representative since it involved a large group of the religious and non-religious organization. The research is not original. It is an editorial whereas the initial analysis is reserved at Oxford University.

The methods used in my opinion are not appropriate since the use of electric shock and paintings does not portray pain is an inducement. The collection of data is not explicitly stated. It does not indicate where the study was done. It is an article published about the research briefly

Provenance

Is it clear where the information has come from? Can you identify the author(s) or organization(s)?

What sort of publication is it? Is it a primary research report, or a review or an opinion article? Is it peer-reviewed?

Does the article provide citations and references that lead to further reading to back up the claims, and are they trustworthy sources? The source is an academic institution. Research carried out at universities of Oxford and Cambridge.

The author being Katja Wiech and colleagues from the two universities.

The study has been supported by the Oxford Center for the science of the mind and funded by the Templeton Foundation.

The article is primary research report which is peer-reviewed in a medical journal Pain

The article provides citations and references for further reading to (Wiech et al., 2008) the source. The author of the secondary source being Bazian who is an editor of NHS.choices The source is not an academic but an opinion article published by the express Home of the daily and Sunday express.

The article is not peer-reviewed nor does it provide citations and references of the main article

Timeliness

How up-to-date is the material? Is it clear when it was written?

Does the date of the information meet your requirements, or is it obsolete (opinions and understanding may have changed)? The electronic source appears to be published in 2008. However, it has been reviewed by various sites showing that the material is up to date and the release dates of the original being on September 5, 2008.

To learn about how religion affects pain is possible. Maybe the opinions will change as the review goes on It was published on Monday at 00hrs on September 29, 2008. The information has not altered in any way. The article does not meet the requirement. It is obsolete