Evaluating Web Sites Chart

Site 1 Name: Boilerplate Project Rank: #4

  • Strengths: Lots of information about the history of Boilerplate. Provided interesting pictures and sparked interest. Learned about the authors of the book.
  • Weaknesses: Credibility was weak. The website was cluttered and hard to navigate. There were too many links throughout the website. Was not referenced by other reliable sites.

Site 2 Name: Smoking From all Sides; Rank: #5
  • Strengths: Provided an abundance of links. It was not cluttered. It was organized.
  • Weaknesses: Links did not always pertain to the topic. Some links sent reader to bizarre unrelated sites.

Site 3 Name: Dihydrogen Monoxide; Rank: #1

  • Strengths: Very informative. Provided lots of resources, reports and links. Easy to navigate throughout website. Linked by several other reliable sites. Some sources were cited and provided specific links.
  • Weaknesses: One-sided and biased. A little cluttered. Not all claims were properly cited.

Site 4 Name: Dino Buzz; Rank: # 2

  • Strengths: Easy to navigate throughout website. Uncluttered. Very informative and interesting. Many links to other scholarly websites. Provided sponsor and sources were cited in APA format.
  • Weaknesses: Some of the links did not work. Very wordy. Not concise information. Did not provide information that is user-friendly for all readers.

Site 5 Name: The Art of Jacopo di Poggibonsi; Rank: #3

  • Strengths: Simple and easy to navigate throughout website. Well-labeled. Provided some sources with links. Provided lots of information about Jacopo di Poggibonsi.
  • Weaknesses: Could not find the author or sponsors of the site. It was not pleasing to the eye; hard to read. The contrast of the background color made it hard to read. Over-simplified; basic.

In one or two sentences, defend your choice for the #1 site related to the criteria you were assigned:
We chose Dihydrogen Monoxide as our #1 site because the overall presentation of the website was user-friendly and informative. It provided credible sources to support its argument.