Checklist for Content

BIOL 2500

CHECKLISTS FOR TERM PROJECTS

Use these checklists to review your own work
or that of a colleague.

I. Checklist for design of Term Project pages
II. Checklist for content of Term Project pages
III. Checklist for the Group Home Page
IV. Checklist for the Page or Site overall

How to use the lists

Topic of Page:	.
Author, Group	.

URL of Topic

href="http://is...

Active Link
to the Page:

link name

Reviewer and/or Group (as requested)	.
Date (year/mo/day)	.

I. Checklist for design of Term Project pages

A. Site and Page Navigation; Table of Contents

#	Item	t/s	X, ~ or blank
1	Is there a link to the Group Home Page?	t	.
2	Is it near or at the top of the page?	t	.
3	Is there a Table of Contents (TOC)?	t	.
4	Is it well situated (near top of page)?	ts	.
5	Do the links all work?	t	.
6	Are all sections on the page cited in the TOC?	t	.
7	Are there navigational aids at the bottom of the page?	t	.
8	All told, is the page or site easy to get around? If it is a single long page or a multifaceted site, might a Frames format be appropriate?	ts	.

Comments (italicized):

B. Code

#	Item	t	X, ~ or blank
1	Is the page largely free of superfluous code?	ts	.
2	Is the page largely free of serious code errors?	ts	.

How many errors are indicated by the W3C Code Validator for HTML4.01 Transitional Code?
Enter Number at right

Comments (italicized):

C. Colors, background images, whitespace

#	Item	t	X, ~ or blank
1	Are the colors or background images appropriate?	ts	.
2	Are browser safe colors used for colored text, backgrounds, and in graphics with large areas of flat colors?	t	.
3	Can you read the text easily (cf. contrast with background)?	ts	.
4	Is the page free of "moving parts"? Comment on any (useful or annoying?)	t	.
5	Is there sufficient whitespace?	ts	.
6	Is the width of the page appropriate? (consider also browser/platform compatibility issues under F below)	ts	.

Comments (italicized):

D. The Photograph(s)

#	Item	t	X, ~ or blank
1	Is the image well placed?	s	.
2	Are the dimensions of the image appropriate?	s	.
3	Is there a legend, is it appropriate?	ts	.
4	Is the source properly cited? (See Acknowledging Images )	ts	.
5	Is there a link directly to the source? (to the actual image at the source site)	t	.
6	Is it a useable source (cf copyright)? (Check source; comment below.)	ts	.
7	Is it relevant to the topic?	s	.
8	Is it sharp? Good contrast? Not too bright or dark?	ts	.
9	Is the appropriate image type (jpg, gif) used?	ts	.
10	What is the compressed file size; is it OK (not too large)?	t	.
11	Is it stored at 72 ppi?	t	.
11	Are the length and width of the original image the same as those of the image as it appears on the page?	t	.
12	Is the ALT attribute specified in the code?	t	.
13	Should there be fewer images (put an X if yes)?	s	.
14	Are there enough images?	s	.

Comments (italicized):

E. Headings and text

#	Item	t	X, ~ or blank
1	Do the headings and subheadings follow a consistent hierarchy of size/color?	t	.
2	Are Header Tags used for the Page Titles and Subtitles?	t	.
2	Overall, do the sections and text appear well laid out?	ts	.

Comments (italicized):

F. Compliancy
Are there major aberrations between the page viewed with Netscape and viewed with Explorer? Examine the page using at least 2 different browsers and/or platforms (i.e. at least two from below).

Trial	Platform/Browser	t	X, ~ or blank
1	Netscape on a PC Browser Version no: Screen dimensions in pixels (w x h):	ts	.
2	Explorer on a PC Browser Version no: Screen dimensions in pixels (w x h):	ts	.
3	Netscape on a Mac Browser Version no: Screen dimensions in pixels (w x h):	ts	.
4	Explorer on a Mac Browser Version no: Screen dimensions in pixels (w x h):	ts	.

Comments (italicized):

G. File Sizes, Download Times Submit the page(s) to NetMechanic to determine the following.

#	Item	Value
1	File size for the Page + Graphics (specify units)	.
2	File size for Graphics on the page (specify units)	.
3	Estimated download time 28.8k modem (specify units)	.
4	Estimated download timeT1 (1.44 MB) connection (specify units)	.

Comments (italicized):

H. For sites with more than one page:

#	Item	t	X, ~ or blank
1	Is there a consistency between pages in a site that readily identifies the pages as belonging to the same site?	ts	.
2	Can one navigate readily between different pages of the site, and from any one page to all other pages?	ts	.
3	Are relative addresses used to link between pages? (check a few in the source code)	t	.

Comments (italicized):

II. Checklist for content of Term Project pages

A. Layout of Text, editing for the Web

#	Item	t	X, ~ or blank
1	Does the introductory paragraph orient the visitor? Is it sufficiently close to the top of the page (e.g. within the initial screen view) to catch the visitor's eye? If not, do other components within the Initial Screen View such as the title and Table of Contents do that adequately?	s	.
2	Are the titles and subtitles self-explanatory?	s	.
3	Is the Information consciously organized according to one of Kilian's categories (Narrative-Logical-Categorical)? If not, should it be so organized , or could it use more organization?	ts	.
4	Is use made of "hooks" and "blurbs"?	ts	.
5	Are there some sections that might be better presented as a separate document for retrieval by downloading?	ts	.
6	Are technical terms highlighted as glossary items?	t	.
7	In general does the text make use of Plain English? Are Strong Verbs used over weak ones?	ts	.
8	Should the text be broken up into smaller segments, or some material put on a separate page? (Can you go through the text quickly and still grasp the main points (although not necessarily all of the details?)	ts	.
9	Are there words or phrases that could be cut out to make it read better?	ts	.
10	Are lists used where they could be?	ts	.
11	Are there any serious grammatical errors?	t	.
12	Are there spelling errors?	t	.

Comments (italicized):

B. Content/use of sources

#	Item	t	X, ~ or blank
1	Is the text free of rhetoric or strong personal bias, or if such is included, is it in a section called "A Personal Perspective" or something like that?	ts	.
2	Is the text adequately referenced? (Could all statements of fact or other representations be followed up?)	ts	.
3	Has the writer used and cited sufficient sources to back up particular statements and themes?	s	.
4	Does the work include references to recent refereed scientific literature (1991-2002)? Should more be included?	ts	.
5	Are good examples given, e.g. including numerical data, to illustrate the principles expressed, generalizations that are made or patterns described?	s	.
6	Are all in-text references cited in the Cited Literature and Links section?	t	.
7	In presenting statements of fact, or otherwise citing sources, has the writer fairly represented the sources? (Check sources)	ts	.
8	Has the writer used good (highly credible) sources? If some or all of the sources were not the original sources, are there instances where original papers should be consulted and cited? (Check sources).	ts	.
9	Are there statements made and attributed to a source that cannot be found in the source?	ts	.
10	When sources are consulted, is it clear that the writer has made appropriate use of the sources in writing his or her own text, i.e. it is not just a cut and paste job? (Is the work free of any hint of violation of copyright?)	ts	.
11	Does or might reading the text and following up sources give the impression that some sources have not been properly represented and acknowledged, or that they have been used more or less verbatim without acknowledgement? (Is the work free of any hint of plagiarism?)	s	.

Comments (italicized):

C. Glossary

#	Item	t	X, ~ or blank
1	Is the Definition List format used?	t	.
2	Are glossary items related to the contents of the page?	s	.
3	Are the glossary definitions appropriate for the subject and intended audience? Could more be added?	s	.
4	Are new (tech'y) words found in the text present in the glossary?	ts	.
5	In the text, are terms included in the glossary colored to indicate that they are glossary terms? (cf Technical Guidelines)	t	.

Comments (italicized):

D. Useful Links section

#	Item	t	X, ~ or blank
1	Is it a useful selection of links?	s	.
2	Are there at least 3 Useful Links?	t	.
3	Should more be provided to serve the Gateway function?	s	.
4	Are they working? (Check them out)	t	.
5	Are the sites likely to be stable for a while? Comment	ts	.
6	Are the sites credible?	ts	.
7	Is a description provided for each link to indicate what is on the site that makes it a useful link?	t	.
8	Does the description indicate what this particular site offers versus another site?	ts	.
9	Could some links be added within the description to make it more helpful to the visitor?	s	.
10	Are the links formatted properly?	t	.

Comments (italicized):

E. Useful literature (Refereed papers, reviews; books)

#	Item	t	X, ~ or blank
1	Is it cited properly?	t	.
2	Is it a good selection, relevant? Items should be reasonably accessible (not obscure, hard-to-get publications).	s	.
3	Are there sufficient citations from 1999-2002?	s	.

Comments (italicized):

F. Useful Journals

#	Item	t	X, ~ or blank
1	Are at least 3 journals relevant to the topic cited?	t	.
2	Would they qualify as some of the major journals within the area (versus obscure journals, or journals that only occasionally carry papers relevant to the area)?	s	.
3	Are they formatted properly with links to the journal itself or to the publisher?	t	.

Comments (italicized):

G. Cited literature and links

#	Item	t	X, ~ or blank
1	Are the citations properly formatted ?	t	.
2	Are Novanet Call Numbers given for books?	t	.
3	Are all links and lit. cited in the text given here?	t	.

Comments (italicized):

H. Metatags

#	Item	t	X, ~ or blank
1	Are metatags included?	t	.
2	Are all metatag items identified in the Technical Guidelines included?	t	.
3	Are the abstract and key words appropriate?	s	.

Comments (italicized):

I. Overall

#	Item	t	X, ~ or blank
1	Does the content give the impression of being an original piece of work? (i.e. not just copied with minimal processing, integration)?	s	.
2	Does the content give the impression of being well researched?	s	.
3	Does the content read well?	s	.
4	Does the content "say something" (versus stating broad generalizations one may have heard before)?	s	.
5	Does the content leave the visitor with a feeling she has gained new perspectives, and/or learned interesting facts?	s	.

Comments (italicized):

III. Checklist for The Group Home Page

Put an X where there are deficiencies; comment as appropriate.

# Item t X, ~ or blank

1 Is it attractive? s .

2 Is an image or graphic included? t .

3 Is it interesting? s .

4 Does it give adequate previews of the subtopics? s .

5 Does it give an idea of what it is about within the initial screenview? ts .

6 Does it link readily to the subtopics? ts .

7. Does the general layout, image quality etc meet technical expectations? t

Comments:

IV. Checklist for The Page or Site overall

Refer to the Term Project General Guidelines for source of the goals stated below.

Provide a rating from 1 (low) to 10 (high) for each of the following:

Q#	Item	t	Rating
1	The page or site as a whole makes a good use of visual elements.	ts	.
2	The page or site gives a good first impression.	s	.
3	A good first impression holds up after a more detailed examination.	ts	.
4	The page or site meets the goal of providing an overview which is convenient.	ts	.
5	The page or site meets the goal of providing an overview which is credible.	ts	.
6	The page or site meets the goal of providing an overview which is up-to-date.	ts	.
7	The page or site meets the goal of providing an overview which is interesting.	s	.
8	The page or site meets the goal of providing an overview which is original.	ts	.
9	The page or site meets the goal of providing an overview which is properly credited.	ts	.
10	The page or site meets the goal of providing a gateway to finding further information.	ts	.
11	The page or site is appropriate "for visitors with a university education or equivalent (or in progress, like yourselves), but who are not experts in the topic you presenting."	s	.

Comments:
Please include comments on particularly innovative
and/or interesting features of the site.

Biology 2500 Web Literacy for the Life Sciences

Winter Semester
2001/2002