Applying the Rubric to The Viking Lady

As a test for the project rubric we have made for ourselves, I shall apply it to the following website:

http://www.vikinganswerlady.com/vik_pets.shtml

This is the website of The Viking Answer Lady. It appears as though people send her questions and she makes a webpage in response. The main page I shall focus on is the one concerning Viking pets and domesticated animals. This is for three reasons, all being of approximately equal weight. First, I like animals very much. More, perhaps and depending on the reader of this, than Vikings. Second, it is the only page which discusses burials. This is odd, for there is a myth and religion section. I am no expert but I think religions often tend to have a significant impact on the burials that happen around them. Finally, the website is quite to large to read and this page seems much the same as the other I have looked at, except for matters of length. This one seems to be a particularly long one, likely due to the many subsections.

Before I get started, here is the most recent version of the Rubric.

CATEGORIES	Sophisticated 6	Highly Sophisticated 4	Fairly Competent 2	Not Yet Competent 0	Total
Introduction x2	-Clearly presents the arguments. -Provides all the necessary background information for understanding the arguments. -Fully explains the scope of the project. -Explains the structure of the website.	-Presents the arguments. -Provides most of the necessary background information for understanding the arguments. -Explains the scope of the project. -Explains most the structure of the website.	-Presents some of the arguments. -Provides some of the necessary background information for understanding the arguments. -Explains part of the scope of the project. -Explains some of the structure	-Barely presents the arguments. -Provides no necessary background information for understanding the arguments. -Fails to the structure of the website.	/12
Quality of Writing x2	-Well organized. -Easily understandable. -Grammatically sound.	-Organized. -Quite clear. -Understandable. -Very few grammatical and spelling errors.	-Lacks organization. -Sometimes confusing. -Sometimes hard to understand. -Some grammatical and spelling errors.	-No organization. -Unclear. -Hard to understand. -Many grammatical and spelling errors.	/12
Presentation x1	-Pages are very easy to read. -Real effort was made in terms of colors, highlights, pictures...	-Pages are readable. -Some effort was made in terms of colors, highlights, pictures...	-Pages are sometimes hard to read. -Some color, or highlight, or pictures is used.	-Pages are very hard to read. -No effort was made in terms of colors, highlights, pictures...	/6
Quality of Evidence x2	-Evidence used is relevant for this project. -Evidence is reasonably balanced -Evidence has been well connected to arguments.	-Most of the evidence used is relevant for this project. -Evidence is rather balanced -Evidence has been fairly connected to arguments.	-Some of the evidence used is relevant for this project. -Evidences is not balanced -Evidence has been badly connected to arguments.	-Evidence used is irrelevant for this project. -Evidence has not been connected to arguments.	/12
Quality of Analysis x2	It shows reflection and a critical eye. Anthropological methods were clearly understood and applied.	It shows some reflection and a critical eye. Some anthropological methods were understood and applied.	It lacks more reflection and a critical eye. Anthropological methods need more depth.	It does not show reflection and a critical eye. Anthropological methods were not understood and applied.	/12
Total					/54

This was not an easy one to paste in here, but in it has squeezed (Squoze? Is that only for piglets?)


Introduction

0/12
The introduction to this page is very short. It would have been more appropriate if she had introduced topic of Scandinavian animal husbandry beyond two mildly contradicting sentences. A brief history and general trends, which pop up occasionally throughout, would have been well placed here.


Quality of Writing


7/12
The procession of her explanations and arguments is sensible, though there does not seem to be much reasoning behind it. It has the feel of "what is thought first is written first." Spelling seems to be good but the grammar makes it hard to follow at times. A few sentences take a bit of translating before their English comes out. All told, it is possible to read and fully understand but the writing is not very good.

Presentation


1/6
She has two complicated patterns as her background. The edge between them is uncomfortable to look and and scrolling is a bit like watching a train pass from up close after a tiny bit too much candy. This distracts greatly from the words that are on top. The pictures are nice, though not all of them have an obvious purpose or place. A second opinion on the patterning behind the text, when borrowed from her rewiring job, has it as "that's pretty bad."

Quality of Evidence


6/12
To be honest, I am judging most of these by the information given in the references and google. There are no publications from scholarly journals listed. Though this is likely due to lack of access, this does limit the information base she draws from. She uses a combination of popular and more scholarly books. The one magazine is not a scholarly publication. Unfortunately, she has no referencing throughout for to know where she got her information from. For some things she seems to have research behind but many are seeming to be speculation on her part. She seems to have done some research but I wouldn't reference her.

Quality of Analysis

3/12
She seems to take everything as fact and seems pretty far reaching at times. Her passage on the lynx being the cat and not the lynx because it resembles the lynx had reasoning that I fail to decipher. There were many parts that did not seem to have any purpose, being placed because they had only been come across. I would say she used more uncritical gathering and regurgitation in combination with speculation than proper analysis.

Total: 17/54  (31.5%)

This is about what I was thinking when I first read it. It wasn't an entirely unpleasant website to look through, but I shan't recommend it to any friends. The patterning really was a problem for me. I had to look away every once in a while to reset my eyes. I don't trust this any more than I would wikipedia. Any emulation on my part shall be accidental and unfortunate, especially if this grade follows.