Good Justifying The Evaluation Of Two Websites Essay Example

Type of paper: Essay

Topic: Internet, Website, Information, Schizophrenia, Evaluation, Health, Medicine, Criteria

Pages: 4

Words: 1100

Published: 2021/01/11

English 111

(Essay # 4)
Each day, I make an evaluation about my work, routine, people, surrounding, events, to mention a few. Rarely do I support my personal judgmental assessment with detailed, reasoned arguments or acceptable evidence. I simply have the gut feelings to express my opinion. However, in this academic paper on justifying an evaluation, I will write my statements using criteria from an expert to offer my readers with persuasive, well-developed, and neatly supported claims. I will evaluate my comparison of two websites and justify the set of standards that I will use to evaluate them using Cornell University Library’s (CUL) Criteria for Evaluating Websites. Using well-planned, coherent, organized and reasoned argument, I will also provide evidence and examples in evaluating Mayo Clinic’s (MC) and National Institute of Health’s (NIH) websites. The two websites could be more dynamic, their substantial, insightful, and informative web contents make the websites recommendable to my friends who are seeking information about schizophrenia.
Prior to using CUL’s criteria for the evaluation of websites, I will provide a brief background about the particular web pages of MC (that is, and NIH (that is, First, my preliminary evaluation of MC and NIH websites’ respective formatting (that is, the way materials are shown at the first or main webpage) are presented hereunder:
MC is owned and maintained by the Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research (MFMER) and NIH is owned and maintained by the US National Institute of Health. When it comes to the landing web pages of MC, it is easy to read and navigate given its online search feature. It is also easy to browse because of its horizontal breadcrumb trail. There is also a hyperlink for an online guest or patient who is looking for a job or MC physician. If I am a registered user, I can login to my account. If I am an online visitor who is satisfied or would like to share, comment or like the site’s contents for my friends and family, I can use MC’s social networking widgets (such as, Facebook, Twitter,, and Google+). The other contents of MC’s websites are displayed simplistically and straightforwardly. There are images and other logos. What is more, an online guest or avid follower of MC can subscribe and receive free electronic newsletters. For more related information, MC website has hyperlinks on patient care and other healthcare information. Moreover, MC website has a sitemap, privacy policy, terms, and conditions, among others; it also does not contain dead hyperlinks. Likewise, the MC site is user-friendly because it presents information in an organized and simple way given its general visual aspects or appearance.
In comparison to my assessment of MC’s website formatting with NIH’s formatting, the latter’s landing page has in its topmost, uppermost left pane the name “National Institute of Health.” In the opposite pane are the hyperlinks for contacting MC and for obtaining updates through email. Its catchphrase is to transform people’s understanding on how mental illnesses are being treated medically. Like MC, NIH website also has a breadcrumb trail and search engine widgets. Additionally, NIH website also has social networking widgets for Google+, Facebook, and Twitter. Moreover, it also contains other widgets, such as, RSS Feeds, Newsletter, among others. Just like MC, NIH also has additional important features for contacting them, knowing the directories of the staff, topic finder, privacy notice, accessibility, to mention a few. What I like more on NIH website are its specific features on posts from its director and publications regarding mental diseases, as well as, scroll button when browsing the webpage’s content: such as on schizophrenia. A label, when mouse clicked, will bring you directly to the topic’s specific content. Comparably, the NIH site is user-friendly because it presents information in an organized and simple way, just like the MC website, given its general visual aspects or appearance.
Further, in my appraisal of the two websites, prior to using CUL’s criteria, I learned many things (such as likes and dislikes) as I visit each site. First, MC site presents basic and relevant information on schizophrenia, such as its medical definition, causes, symptoms, complications, risks, diagnosis, treatments, support, and prevention, among others. MC offers important resources on how tests are conducted for the said psychological disorder. Similarly, because of the site, I gave myself the chance to try to set an appointment. When I appraised the site more, I learned whether it is trustworthy or not, not just because it presents information meaningfully and sequentially, but because I was thinking how valuable its ads are in showcasing its own products and services to its prospective clients. For that matter, I rate the MC site nine (9) out of ten (10) stars (10 being the highest rating).
In comparison to the things that I learned from MC website, NIH website also provides information on schizophrenia, such as meaning, causes, risks, signs, symptoms, clinical trials, and mental illness. Like MC site, NIH also offers additional valuable information when seeking help about the disorder. Again, what I like more about NIH website is that it provides extra hyperlinks for about research priorities, outreach, funding, news, labs, and other valuable information. Further, I learned that this governmentally or publicly owned site is a trustworthy and credible one than MC simply because it does not rely on commercial ads for making additional profit. Hence, I rate it 10 out of ten.
At this juncture, I will justify my evaluation of the two sites using CUL’s criteria on their, in alphabetical order: accuracy, authority, coverage, currency, objectivity, and value. First, in terms of accuracy, the MC webpage on schizophrenia has a reference section whereas NIH has not. Despite of that, as a government health website, it is still a credible one since the two sites offer reliable and error-free information. Likewise, I consider the information from both sites as coming from reputable entities where they are themselves responsible for presenting accurate online contents to online readers, clients and professionals. (Criterion: Accuracy)
Second, I consider the NIH website as more authoritative in presenting information because the government (.org) owns it. Unlike NIH, MC is a privately owned company wherein its author on the article schizophrenia is anonymous or MC staff. It is should been better if the article’s author appears to be a medical professional. (Criterion: Authority)
Third, MC and NIH web pages on schizophrenia, incontestably, cover sufficiently enough basic information, such as meaning, causes, risks, signs, symptoms, and other related topics or hyperlinks. (Criterion: Coverage)
Fourth, the article on schizophrenia is updated in the MC site. On the other hand, the basic information in the NIH has not date, but does not discredit the fact that the information are general knowledge; hence, does not affect much its rating. Both sites have no dead hyperlinks. (Criterion: Currency)
Fifth, there could be a sort of bias in MC’s site because it has many commercial ads for extra earnings whereas NIC site does not have one (Criterion: Objectivity)
Sixth, both web contents from the two sites are equally valuable or important because they offer basic and extra information about schizophrenia. (Criterion: Value)
Inarguably, NIH website is comparable better than the MC website based on the criteria that I used in justifying my evaluation of them. Should my family, relatives, friends, and classmates seek basic and related information on schizophrenia, I will recommend first the NIH site and then the MC site for added information.

Works Cited

Cornell University Library. Criteria for evaluating webpages. 28 June 2010. Web. 2 April 2015. <>.
Mayo Clinic Staff. Schizophrenia. 24 January 2014. Web. 3 April 2015. <>.
National Institutes of Health. Schizophrenia. n.d. Web. 3 April 2015. <>.

Cite this page
Choose cite format:
  • APA
  • MLA
  • Harvard
  • Vancouver
  • Chicago
  • ASA
  • IEEE
  • AMA
WePapers. (2021, January, 11) Good Justifying The Evaluation Of Two Websites Essay Example. Retrieved August 19, 2022, from
"Good Justifying The Evaluation Of Two Websites Essay Example." WePapers, 11 Jan. 2021, Accessed 19 August 2022.
WePapers. 2021. Good Justifying The Evaluation Of Two Websites Essay Example., viewed August 19 2022, <>
WePapers. Good Justifying The Evaluation Of Two Websites Essay Example. [Internet]. January 2021. [Accessed August 19, 2022]. Available from:
"Good Justifying The Evaluation Of Two Websites Essay Example." WePapers, Jan 11, 2021. Accessed August 19, 2022.
WePapers. 2021. "Good Justifying The Evaluation Of Two Websites Essay Example." Free Essay Examples - Retrieved August 19, 2022. (
"Good Justifying The Evaluation Of Two Websites Essay Example," Free Essay Examples -, 11-Jan-2021. [Online]. Available: [Accessed: 19-Aug-2022].
Good Justifying The Evaluation Of Two Websites Essay Example. Free Essay Examples - Published Jan 11, 2021. Accessed August 19, 2022.

Share with friends using:

Related Premium Essays
Contact us
Chat now