Evaluation of General Sources

"Chinese scientists genetically modify human embryos" Cryanoski, David and Reardon, Sara Nature

URL:

The URL is a ".com", which might normally indicate that the site is either for profit or owned independently from a government agency or a university. However, Nature is a highly respected science journal and its content is peer-reviewed - in this case, the site is not unreliable by virtue of its ".com" domain.

Author:
The authors names are clearly displayed and contain links to each of their respective biographies. Following the links reveals that each author has a background in the topic at hand - Reardon has a Masters degree in molecular biology and Cryanoski is a journalist specializing in stem cell research.
Last Updated:
The article was last updated on 22 April 2015, so the article is fairly recent. There is no link for the information about the article update.
Purpose: The purpose is clearly informative and does not stray from the main objective of conveying information about a new technique. The article in no way attempts to persuade the audience of anything in the paper.
Graphics:
The graphics are professional and contribute to the reader's understanding of the topic at hand. The graphics include high resolution pictures which are not distracting and do not detract from the information in the piece.
Position on Subject:
The authors are clearly impartial and do not try to persuade the audience of a specific viewpoint. Both sides of the debate are equally covered and no obvious bit of information seems to be omitted, underdeveloped or excluded.
Links:
Authors provide extensive links and a complete list of references. All links are relevant, and no links are broken or damaged.

"Scientists genetically modify human embryos in controversial world first"
Sample, Ian The Guardian

URL:
The URL is a ".com", which is not as reliable as a ".gov" or a ".edu" domain. The domain indicates that the affiliated author/company could be either for profit, or not affiliated with a reliable source such as a government agency or a university. However, the Guardian is generally considered a fairly reputable website - it is certainly a popular source but not necessarily unqualified.
Author: 
Ian Sample is the author and his name is displayed at the beginning of the paper and is easy to find. His name is linked to his personal biography, which indicates that he is the Science Editor, has a PhD in bio-mechanics and previously worked at the Institute of Physics in Queens, thus supporting that he is a reputable source for an article on genetics research.
Last Updated:
The article was last updated on 23 April 2015, thus it is fairly recent. The link provided works, and directs the reader to a more detailed report on when the article was updated.
Purpose: Informative - the article seemed to deliver the news in a precise and professional manner. The delivery does not seem to contain and propaganda or lobbying.
Graphics:
Overall, the graphics were professional and supported the point of the paper - the photos were high resolution and were relevant to the topic at hand.
Position on Subject:
The article was very impartial and focused on dutifully relaying facts. There was no tone of persuasion to the piece at all. Since the Guardian is a news-based site, there were no product or services advertised and thus it can be assumed that the author did not stand to gain any money from the piece.
Links: 
The article did contain links to related article and all links were in working order. The article cited reputable journals. No links were damaged or broken, and the information was relevant.