Revise
kiaa_p1
Revise_1002GEssay3-sp18.docxRUNNING HEADER: WEBSITE EVALUATION GREENPEACE 1
WEBSITE EVALUATION GREENPEACE 6
1
RUNNING HEAD: WEBSITE EVALUATION GREENPEACE
Website Evaluation Greenpeace
Website evaluation ( http://www.greenpeace.org )
Introduction
There is a lot of information on every issue or subject that is found on the internet. However, it is not a guarantee that all the information found on the internet is accurate. Some of it is not reliable. Therefore it is upon the user to determine whether information on the internet is accurate and reliable or not. This paper seeks to evaluate the website for ‘Greenpeace organization’ which is http://www.greenpeace.org. I chose to evaluate this website because after looking at it severally, it looks like a legit website and one that can benefit environmentalists. Personally, I love the environment so that is why I chose the website. Greenpeace work on several issues; toxics, oceans, forests, nuclear, agriculture, and climate change (Facts, 19). it will use the following criteria for evaluating the web source; its objectivity, authority, coverage, accuracy, relevancy, and currency.
Authority
· Author
Almost all the articles on the website have been written by the organization that is ‘Greenpeace.' There are no individual authors to the articles on the website. The authority of the content found on this website depends on how the user depicts the organization's general credibility. This is because the organization is a prominent one with a significant public profile. Comment by Monique Branscumb: Do you they have a list of contributors or staff members that help write? If you look under the “research” tab, they do have articles that are written by “Greenpeace” and individual authors.
· Organization
Comment by Monique Branscumb: You can go into a little more detail about this. They have an extensive “about” section.
According to the content on the website, Greenpeace is a non-profit making organization. It depends on charity and fundraisings to run its activities.
· References
Most of the articles on this website have a backup source for their information. The website does not just give information without proving that whatever is written on the website are facts. For example, there are so many statistics in various articles that strengthen the information that the website is communicating to its audience (Eyerman, 120). Comment by Monique Branscumb: This is not an example, maybe you can look at an article and name some of the data they use.
· Information provided
Most articles are charged on basis of politics but would generally concur with the environmental movement. For example, the article that was written on 30th January 2018 that says "your right to stand for forests is under attack – again." It states that corporate bullies, helped by Donald Trump’s go-to law firm, have filed two massive lawsuits against Greenpeace in the last two years (Lasswell, 122). This is a political overview. This post is accompanied by a group of Greenpeace activists in a forest protesting with a big banner written #OURVOICESAREVITAL. Comment by Monique Branscumb: This does not need to be italicized. If you quoted it, then put it on quotes.
· Language
The content is well written though there are some notable mistakes. For example, there is a skull image on the front page of the website. This is very unnecessary. It is actually an emotive imagery. Comment by Monique Branscumb: This does not have to do with the language they use. Language refers to the language on the website. Is it a bunch of jargon or are they using simple words? This example would be used when you are talking about the layout or the website in general.
· Color
The dominant color of the website is green. This is very relevant because it talks about the environment and conservation. Green color represents the environment. Comment by Monique Branscumb: You can also mention the color of the “donate” button also. They pops out when you go to the website.
· Audience
This website targets the general audience and mostly those that have a passion for environmental conservation. The information posted on the website is very important and useful to the audience. In other words, the website meets the needs of its target audience.
· Connection to its role
The website provides very detailed, useful and reliable information for someone who is concerned about endangered animals and conservation. It seems to provide much detailed information about the two areas. Comment by Monique Branscumb: How?
· Currency
The website has so many up to date clips and news bulletins. The latest updates on the website were posted on 30th January 2018 (Eyerman, 99). For example, the articles; your right to stand for forests is under attack- again, Greenpeace activities call out Samsung's sponsorship of Winter Olympics as hypocrisy and Sponsoring climate change. Comment by Monique Branscumb: Were all these published on the January 30th? If not, when were they posted if you are naming them to talk about how current they are.
Reliability
· Objectivity
The website is more lenient towards politics because its viewpoint is political. It only gives evidence to back up its viewpoint. Though it provides information about the environment and conservation, for someone carrying out a research on the two fields should search for other sources that would provide more relevant and in-depth overview of the environment and conservation. Comment by Monique Branscumb: To the right or to the left? Comment by Monique Branscumb: So, greenspace is just a starting point or general.
· Goal
The main goal of Greenpeace is to convince the user that its contribution to the environment and conservation is justified and true. It also tries to convince the user in a way that the user may want to get involved or donate money towards the organization. As mentioned earlier, the organization does not make any profits, therefore, it depend on donations, sponsorships,, and fundraisings. For example, the blogpost by Robin Perkins on 30th January 2018 – sponsoring climate change, the 2018 winter Olympics which is a function organized by Greenpeace organization is sponsored by Samsung. Comment by Monique Branscumb: This is a good example.
· Kind of information Comment by Monique Branscumb: With a little more information, this could be one paragraph.
The website can be rated as thorough because it ample links and it provides more information about its areas of concern and also strives to give evidence for different statements made.
· Primary/ secondary source
The website generally provides primary source data. It posts mostly about the organization's activities.
Conclusion
http://www.greenpeace.org is a moderately reliable source of information on environment and conservation. Information found on this website is legit and accurate because it is accompanied by evidence. However, the researcher needs to gather more information from other sources to accompany the information from this website. The website should, however, provide more detailed information to ensure that its content is more subjective. Comment by Monique Branscumb: You could add more onto this conclusion.
References Comment by Robert Martinez II: Works Cited
Eyerman, Ron, and Andrew Jamison. "Environmental knowledge as an organizational weapon: The case of Greenpeace."Information (International Social Science Council) 28.1 (1989): 99-119.
Facts, Activist. "Greenpeace Organization and Donations. Washington: Activist Facts; 2011 2011. 19 p."
Lasswell, Harold Dwight. Politics: Who gets what, when, how. New York: P. Smith, 1950.
|
Criterion |
Poor |
Fair |
Good |
Excellent |
|
Thesis Statement
15 /20 |
Presented no thesis statement. No clear main point of the paper. |
Thesis statement unfocused. Kind of clear main point, seems unsure. Barely engages the audience. |
Thesis statement present, but not strong enough, not clear enough or does not engage the audience. |
Clear thesis statement. States the papers focus and engages the audience. Clear main point of the paper. |
|
Content
15/30 |
Does not evaluate the source clearly, Shows no research or little to no evidence for evaluation. No direction or flow in ideas. |
Somewhat evaluates the sources clearly. Shows hardly any research or evidence. Some direction and a few clear points but does not flow. |
Evaluates the source clearly but shows little research or evidence. Mostly clear points and overall direction flows. |
Correctly evaluates the source and show cases thorough research and evidence that creates a clear direction of the paper. |
|
Organization
10/15 |
Not organized. Does not follow any pattern or sequence of ideas. |
Somewhat organized. Thoughts expressed, but not fully developed. |
Shows attempts at organization of paragraphs. Needs work on fully developing ideas. |
Expresses organization and structured paragraphs. |
|
Mechanics
8/10
Usage
10/15 |
Multiple errors including punctuation and spelling.
Distracting errors in sentence structure and word usage. |
Many errors in punctuation and spelling.
Errors in sentence structure and word usage. |
Almost no errors in punctuation and spelling.
Almost no errors in sentence structure and word usage. |
Little to no errors in punctuation and spelling.
No errors in sentence structure or word usage. |
|
MLA Citation
0/10 |
No works cited page present. |
Works cited page present but displays multiple errors, not all works cited, and not in the correct format. |
Works cited page displayed some errors, but overall correctly cited sources. |
Error free works cited page. Everything cited properly and formatted correctly |
Grade: _58__/100
Feedback:
Although you have a good start, this paper is not in correct MLA format. I’m not sure what format you used—that is, all the sub-headings. It looks like you mimicked how the assignment sheet broke down areas to evaluate. You do not need to include all those bullet points and subheadings; just write in essay format. With that being said, translating it in to MLA and adding a few more details to fill the spaces, I am sure you will have a fuller, more concise evaluation. See me if you need help with this.
