Using Our Group's Rubric With Another Website

     For this exercise, I have chosen the website of Helgeland Museum in Norway. It is actually a collection of 17 museums scattered in the country. Those 17 museums are located in 16 different municipalities. Each one of them has a section where they introduce themselves; they also give historical and/or archaeological information about the local sites and/or artefacts, and/or the locals' "ancient" customs, habits, crafts or trades. So the contents and presentations will differ from one another.
     Here is the homepage of the website:
          http://helgelandmuseum.no/
     And here is the page which interest me:
          http://helgelandmuseum.no/archives/5220


     And here is our rubric:

     Basically, this webpage talks about 2 Viking graves at Herøy, Norway.


     The Introduction is a paragraph which explains in what circumstances the graves were found. It gives more context rather than arguments. Thus, we know that the graves were found in Spring 1983 on a construction yard, leading to its stop so as to allow archaelogical research.  The page gives no clear structure about this subject. I would say it is in-between the 'Fairly Competent' and 'Not Yet Competent'. 2/54


     The Quality of Writing is questionable, not on the writer's side but on mine. As I don't read Norwegian, I'd say that I trust him or her. But with a translator, it is fairly understandable and rightly organized. 12/54


     The Presentation is what I would criticize the most. The font size is really small. You need to scroll a lot as the webpage is presenting the graves in one page only. There is no colors. However, I appreciate the fact that the author made distinct parts by putting titles and by bolding them. I also appreciate the part in which he/she makes a clear listing of the contents and positions of the goods and skeletons, and the adding of pictures to illustrate the cases studied. It gives a break from the long (or seemingly long) reading of this unique page. 2/54


     The Quality of Evidence is also debatable. Firstly, the documents seem to be entirely in Norwegian. So trying to find them and trying to know if they are peer-reviewed is complicated. Moreover, if the website itself seems to be seriously led - especially since it is that of a museum -, I was surprised to see that some of the sources come from Wikipedia. Maybe I misunderstood it. But I found it weird that the name of one author in particular was followed by (Wik). However, because the documents seem to have been written in a Scandinavian language if not Norwegian, I would tend to believe that the authors have more various and up-to-date sources. Indeed, some of them are researchers at universities and/or have written for archaeological reviews. 8/54


     The Quality of Analysis seems to be good even if at times, it sounds more like a listing of facts. The analysis comes way after in what seems to be the conclusion part. However, I admit that I don't know how to be critical as I am not experienced in that field. I fear that I might be listing a lot myself for our project. 12/54


     So the total would be : 34/54 = 66.67%


     Wow! I am truly surprised. Maybe I marked too strictly. I think that the website may be interesting for this page only. I tried to find other articles about Viking graves, but this seems to be the only one available.