Should the Saudi PIF invest in Nike?

profilethe king5022
progressreport.docx

MEMORANDUM

TO: Mr. Josh Billam, instructor, English 214

FROM: Hamad Al-Ghanim (AME) 201853720, English 214-07 AA

DATE: 19 June 2021

SUBJECT: Progress Report for library research project:

Provisional title: “How Factories have Changed Before and After Internet of Things : A Comparison”

I. INTRODUCTION

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. WORK COMPLETED

A. Sources

I have found five potential sources so far and have read four of them. (See the working bibliography below.) I have written source evaluations for three of the listed sources, and have made 28 note cards for them. Two of the sources below are full-text PDF articles found using the Library’s Summon search engine; two were found on the Internet using Google Scholar and Magportal, respectively; and one was found in the Library’s print collection of current journals.

Fedoroff, N. V., Battisti, D. S., Cooper, P. J., Hodges, C. N., Beachy, R. N., Fischoff,

D. A., . . .Zhu, J. K. (2010). Radically rethinking agriculture for the 21st century.

Science, 327(5297), 833-834. doi: 10.1126/science.1186834

Gomiero, T., Pimentel, D., & Paoletti, M. G. (2011). Is there a need for a more

sustainable agriculture? Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, 30(3), 6-23.

Parris, K. (2011). Impact of agriculture on water pollution in OECD countries.

Water Resources Development,27(1), 33-52. doi: 10.1080/07900627.2010.531898

Scheierling, S. M., Loomis, J. B., & Young, R. A. (2006).Irrigation water demand: A meta-

analysis of price elasticities.Water Resources Research, 42, Retrieved from

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2005WR004009.shtml

B. Preliminary outline

I have developed my initial rough plan into the following two-level topic outline:

INTRODUCTION

I. first Comparison about ------------

II. second Comparison about ------------

III. Comparison about ------------

CONCLUSION

C. Source evaluations

ENGLISH 214SOURCE EVALUATION # 1

NAME: Ali Al-Ali ID: 201012340 SEC/SN: 99 / 28

REPORT TITLE (Provisional): The Effects of the Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster

1. THE SOURCE

How long is your source? 3 pages.

How did you find the source?: I typed in “Chernobyl nuclear disaster effects” into the Summon search

engine. This article was the third on the list.

Write a complete APA reference for your source:

Day, A. (2011, September 18) Cleaning up the Chernobyl mess. BBC News.

Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/123BD33

2. SUMMARY OF THE SOURCE

In about100 words, summarize the main points of your source.

This article discusses the main effects of the Chernobyl nuclear explosion that

happened in Ukraine in 1986. It firstly explains the main cause of the disaster,

human error, and then discusses the main effects both in the local area and in

Europe as a whole. It gives statistics on the number of people who became ill

with cancer over the following 20 years and it describes how farming in Europe

was severely affected for several years. It concludes with the methods used to try

and clean up the radioactivity that had fallen in Europe.

3. EVALUATION:

In about 100 words, explain why you chose this source for your report.

Relevance: connect relevant parts of the source with your outline.

Article: what level is it? How up-to-date is the information?

Publication / website / author: are they reputable, unbiased and knowledgeable?

I chose this article because it is all relevant to the main parts of my report. It

Contains information about the type of nuclear plant, which fits in my Background

Section and it has some brief information about the reasons for the explosion,

which belongs in the Causes section of my report. Most of the article, however, is

concerned with my main idea, which is the effects of the explosion and the problem

of cleaning up.

The BBC is a reliable website and the level of the article is aimed at the average

reader. The article is quite new, about six months old, so it has the latest information

about the disaster. I googled the author, Agnes Day, and she has been the BBC’s

science editor for the past 15 years so is knowledgeable on this subject.

ENGLISH 214SOURCE EVALUATION # 2

NAME: Ali Al-Ali ID: 201012340 SEC/SN: 99 / 28

REPORT TITLE (Provisional): The Effects of the Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster

1. THE SOURCE

How long is your source? 3 pages.

How did you find the source?: I typed in “Chernobyl nuclear disaster effects” into the Summon search

engine. This article was the third on the list.

Write a complete APA reference for your source:

Day, A. (2011, September 18) Cleaning up the Chernobyl mess. BBC News.

Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/123BD33

2. SUMMARY OF THE SOURCE

In about100 words, summarize the main points of your source.

This article discusses the main effects of the Chernobyl nuclear explosion that

happened in Ukraine in 1986. It firstly explains the main cause of the disaster,

human error, and then discusses the main effects both in the local area and in

Europe as a whole. It gives statistics on the number of people who became ill

with cancer over the following 20 years and it describes how farming in Europe

was severely affected for several years. It concludes with the methods used to try

and clean up the radioactivity that had fallen in Europe.

3. EVALUATION:

In about 100 words, explain why you chose this source for your report.

Relevance: connect relevant parts of the source with your outline.

Article: what level is it? How up-to-date is the information?

Publication / website / author: are they reputable, unbiased and knowledgeable?

I chose this article because it is all relevant to the main parts of my report. It

Contains information about the type of nuclear plant, which fits in my Background

Section and it has some brief information about the reasons for the explosion,

which belongs in the Causes section of my report. Most of the article, however, is

concerned with my main idea, which is the effects of the explosion and the problem

of cleaning up.

The BBC is a reliable website and the level of the article is aimed at the average

reader. The article is quite new, about six months old, so it has the latest information

about the disaster. I googled the author, Agnes Day, and she has been the BBC’s

science editor for the past 15 years so is knowledgeable on this subject.