Evaluation of General Sources

In this post I'm going to discuss two sources of a recent controversy that has to do with physiology. I found two credible sources on the debate discussing gluten.

The first article covers the overall gluten-free debate.

Stacy. "Anadama Bread" 2 February 10. Creative Commons Attribution  2.0 Generic

URL 
The URL is http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/04/gluten-free-whether-you-need-it-or-not/?_r=0.  It ends in .com which implies it could be either credible or not but because it's the New York Times I consider it as credible.

Author
The author is Kenneth Chang. I was able to verify his qualifications through the New York Times website and his twitter handle.

Last Updated
It was last updated February 4, 2013. Even though the article is over two years old there is no indication that the information is out of date. The other links found on the page take us to other articles throughout the New York Times website and to articles that have to do with health related topics. All of the links found are currently working.

Purpose
The main purpose of this article is to inform the readers of the current studies and findings of a gluten-free diet and the reasons behind people participating in it. There is no written biased opinion trying to sway the reader one way or the other, simply fact and examples of personal experiences that have been properly quoted and cited.

Graphics
There is an initial photo of a piece of bread being shown as hazardous waste. I believe the author is using sarcasm here to show that it is a bit ridiculous to label gluten as unhealthy to consume.

Position on Subject
The author seems to be unbiased about the situation. It is difficult to explain because he tells the viewpoint of a doctor who is biased against the gluten-free diet but also shows evidence that celiacs disease is increasing. The problem is there is no exact answer yet so the author shows both sides to leave the question unanswered, as it remains. If the readers of this article believe the information given New York Times will profit from it as they will gain credibility. The information given can be verified from other sources.

Links
The article itself does not suggest referencing any other readings. It does correctly cite and quote it's sources.

The second article claims to use an evidence-based approach to discuss the controversy.
URL
The URL is http://authoritynutrition.com/gluten-sensitivity-is-real/. Similar to the first one it also ends in .com which alone has no real indication of how credible the source is. We would be able to consider it credible if it ended in .gov or .info.

Author
The author of this article is Kris Gunnars. I was able to find information about Kris through the website the article was found on and other social media such as Google+ and LinkedIn. He has a BS in medicine and is CEO and founder of the Authority Nutrition.

Last Updated
I was not able to locate any information on when the article was last updated. The material is from 2014-2015 as it states so at the very bottom. The links throughout the article are working links to the sources the author used to get the information in the article.

Purpose
The purpose of this article is to inform readers of what gluten actually is and try to make the controversy a little less unclear. Although the article still leaves the question unanswered, it gives a little bit of insight to what might be the real issue with gluten-containing products by discussing a study pertaining to gluten and wheat. There is no recognized biased opinion or persuasion going on.

Graphics
There are photos throughout the article. All but one of the photos are generic photos of pasta, wheat, or other products containing gluten. The only photo with some biased opinion is of a loaf of bread with caution tape over it in reference to wheat being an issue and not gluten. This is when the author talks about a study where gluten was shown to not be as problematic as actual wheat in people with bowel issues.

Position on Subject 
The source appears to have a similar stance as the previous article except a little less biased. It simply informs the reader of the basics of gluten and the diseases that are caused from it. From here it shows evidence from studies about the issue but doesn't try to sway the reader to one side. Overall, it is unbiased.

Links
The article itself does not suggest any other readings but there are a lot of advertisements and suggested articles for other health related topics. This could be a possible question of credibility. On the other hand it does include hyperlinks to reputable sources.