Group5


 * Evaluating Web Sites Chart**

Site 1 Boilerplate Project:[| http://bigredhair.com/boilerplate/] Rank 5 (worst) Strengths: It had a lot of info and convincing photos. Weaknesses: It was fictional that looked like a hobby site. It was disorganized and did not provide a focus. It was used to market a fiction book.

Site 2 Smoking from All Sides: [] Rank 3 Strengths: May be a good site for personal interest. The link to the WHO was interesting. Weaknesses: As far as the design goes, tthere were too many links. It was biased in that it was for non-smoking and it listed more negative effects. It didn't have any publication dates or bibliography. It's a bad source for a research paper.

Site 3 Dihydrogen Monoxide:[| http://www.dhmo.org/] Rank 4 Strengths: It had interesting links and a forum. It was well organized and balanced. Weaknesses: It seemed opinionated, fictional, and highly biased. Research was performed by middle and high school students.

Site 4 Dino Buzz: [] Rank 1 (best) Strengths: It was published by the UC system. It was easy to understand and had a place for updates. The topics were centralized and wasn't overloaded with info. The data had supporting evidence. Weaknesses: We couldn't find any.

Site 5 The art of Jacopo di Poggibonsi: [|http://www.umich.edu/~engtt516/index2.html] Rank 2 Strengths: It was easy to understand and well organized. The link to outside sources was nice. Good for outside research. Weaknesses: The text was hard to read. The design was not optimal for everyone.

In one or two sentences, defend your choice for the #1 site related to the criteria you were assigned: We picked Dino Buzz as the best because it had well supported data, a simple layout/design, and was published by a credible source. Group 5: Tina Ahmed, Jaclyn Vasko, Karen Ong