wikipedia surprisingly has very reliable and accurate science pages, especially for information regarding elements.
hope this helps~
.com
Most likely Citrus such as lemon or orange.
the grand jury
It is reliable because it can be replicated. Always remember if it can be repeated it is most likely reliable.
A book about Native American basket weaving as an art.
You're not likely to get a reliable answer to this question, as workers' comp settlement information is confidential in most states.
A peer-reviewed arcle about the effectiveness and safety of the diatary supplements
The web page of a university would be more reliable since they are only giving information that is easily verifiable from other sources. The other web page is selling you something and without being sure the information is OK.
Very likely. Science fair judges typically are well-read in the subject area and recognize information stolen from common sources. Using a quote giving credit to its source is a positive point to the judges because it means you did the research. Many judges have been involved with science fairs for many years and know when a project copies a previous project. Extending the work of another project is fine as long as you give the other project credit.
this is awsome
GOvernment related agencies, police stations, hospitals, and other valid sources
I can't see a contract like that being enforceable. The subject might have to forfeit any benefits (for example,if they were being paid for the research they might not get paid at all as opposed to getting paid for the portion of the project they completed), but it's difficult to imagine a court imposing any penalty on them much stricter than that (such as forcing a person to complete the project against their wishes).It doesn't seem likely that a legal system where a person could be forced to complete a research project would have worried terribly about consent in the first place. (Think "Mengele" here.)