Internet source evaluation grid
| Evaluation of web source for
_______________________________________________ |
Reviewed by
_______________________________________________ |
To be filled in by the person who located the site:
Title of web site
_______________________________________________________________________
URL address
_________________________________________________________________________
URL contains a ~ indicating a personal web site
_______________________________________________
Domain (.gov, .com, .edu, .net, etc.)
________________________________________________________
Subject:
_____________________________________________________________________________
Search engine used:
____________________________________________________________________
Keyword(s):
To be filled in by the person evaluating the site:
Instructions: Evaluate each criterion by circling a number
on the scale to the right. The better the site,
the higher the number. After you have evaluated each area, write the
subtotal on the line provided. Add
the subtotals for an overall score.
| 1. | The purpose of
the site is clearly stated. |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
| 2. | The site fulfills
its stated purpose. |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
| 3. | Information is
factual and well-balanced (reduce score if one-sided, biased, or based
on personal opinion). |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
| 4. | Information is
complete and thorough (reduce score if site covers only a single aspect
of the subject). |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
| 5. | Information is
appropriate for a research project. |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
| 6. | Author or
sponsoring organization is readily visible. |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
| 7. | Author or sponsor
is reputable and authoritative. |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
| 8. | Sources of
information are clearly identified. |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
| 9. | Information can
be verified by other sources. |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
| 10. | Site contains a
bibliography or links to other sites. |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
| 11. | Author's
viewpoint is stated. |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
| 12. | Author's email
address is given. |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
| 13. | Site was
reviewed by an on-line reviewing agency. |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
| 14. | Site contains
the date of its last revision. |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
| 15. | Revision date is
within 3 months of today. |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
Convenience and usability (25 pts) |
|
| 16. | Site is
accessible with standard equipment and software. |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
| 17. | Site is easy to
navigate; graphics are relevant and do not distract from the text. |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
| 18. | Information is
organized in an orderly and logical way; usable information is available
within 3 clicks. |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
| 19. | Information is
easily extracted (save to file, print page). |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
| 20. | Text is
well-written and easy to understand, free of grammatical and
typographical errors. |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
| 90-100 Excellent | (This
site is so authoritative, comprehensive, and original that it could be
used
as one of the primary sources for a good research paper.) |
| 80-89 Good | (This site
contains good material, but the information is limited in scope or based
on personal opinion. It could be used in a research paper with proper
qualification.) |
| 70-79 Acceptable | (This
site contains some useful information but could only be included in a
research project to clarify or develop information from a better
resource.) |
| 60-69 Borderline | (The
information in this site should only be used if no other is
available.) |
| Below 60 Unacceptable | (The
information in this site is so biased or sketchy that it has no place in
a serious research project.) |
Recommendations | (should
the author use this site freely, find another site, use this one only
with
qualification?) |