Evaluation checklist

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/09/apophis-asteroid-2036-video_n_820800.html

I found this page from a search engine.  I wanted to really find out about the asteroid named Apophis, and if is going to hit the Earth in 2036.  The domain of the page is .com.  I feel it lessens the page’s credibility.  Yes, the author is involved with the site.  This is an online news paper.  No credibility of schooling, but the author uses scientists to explain their theory.  Yes, the evidence is their but the information is blown out of proportion.  No affiliation was shown nor was there a political point of view.  The author is not the creator of the subject.  The author uses the information to explain about the subject.  The author presents a contact through Facebook and twitter.  I feel there is no validity for the author, but the credibility for the article is by the scientists of the article.  Yes there is contact information.  There is no bias thought, but the video image is wrong.  I feel the information is correct because the author uses Donald Yeomans head of NASA’s Near Earth Program to help the message.  The purpose of the page is clearly stated.  This seems to be a current event to convince you the subject is going to happen.  The audience is for anyone seeking info about the subject, many research enthusiasts.  Yes the tone of the article is what I expected.  The vocabulary fits the style for the author’s message.  The credibility for the current date is correct.  The dates are correct, but the subject matter is exaggerated in the video.  The reliability is there but only from the scientists in the article.  This is reliable information, but the author is not reliable.  Yes it is appropriate because I found incorrect information.  I would recommend this site, but not for the research.  There is a good video showing what the subject would do if the theory was correct.  I knew about the asteroid, but not the correct size or damage.