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: http://smokingsides.com/ 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: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/dinobuzz.html 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