Chris Trueman Brief Summary: D-Day Webpage Critique

You are required to choose ONE topic and ONE website for this assignment, per directions below.
TOPIC:D-DAY 
Website: http://www(dot)historylearningsite(dot)co(dot)uk/world-war-two/world-war-two-in-western-europe/d-day-index/background-to-operation-overlord/
Minimum Requirements:
Minimum three pages of text, double-spaced. Use 12-point Times New Roman font.
Include the URL (site address) and why you chose this particular topic and website.
Write brief summary (about 1 ½ to 2-pages) of the history on your topic of interest from the website and a comparison to the information presented in your textbooks.
Critique the website (about 1 ½ to 2-pages). How easy is the site to navigate? How interesting is it? What kinds of links are available to other related information?
Is the site, or the author, biased in the way s/he/it presents the information? What can you find out about the author that might help you understand his/her perspective in offering this information? Most of all, is the information on the website reliable and how can you tell?
For whom, if anyone, would you recommend this site and why?
Do not use an encyclopedia site, such as Wikipedia, Groliers, Encarta.
*Please be aware that half of this assignment is a brief summary of the content and comparison; the other half is an analysis of the website itself. While you may incorporate these two requirements into one nicely flowing essay, you must meet these requirements.
*Essay that are not three full pages in length will lose points. It should not be difficult to write three pages of analysis on any topic.
This assignment meets criteria for research, writing, critical thinking and analysis.
At its worst, the World Wide Web offers an almost endless (and rapidly expanding) sea of low quality, biased, inaccurate and/or actively trashy sites. At its best it offers almost unlimited, always-available worldwide access to excellent multimedia and traditional text materials. Often these materials are at the encyclopedia or pamphlet level; sometimes they go far beyond that level to present much more advanced information. Some strive to be impartial; others are unashamedly partisan. Some are deeply focused on very specific topics; others aim at offering broad but limited coverage of a more encyclopedic sort. Any of these approaches can be very well or very badly done. 
So how do you tell the difference? Fortunately — or unfortunately — the Web has no gatekeeper, or filter, to decide which materials deserve to be included, and which aren’t worth the webspace. Unlike libraries or other filtered institutions, the web is truly a situation of “user beware.” Thus it is important to practice evaluating the academic worth of one or more chosen websites.
The following criteria will help you evaluate websites for their value to the academic study of whatever specific area of knowledge addressed in the sites. Note that these criteria are developed specifically for reviews concerning websites’ value to history and historians.
Authorship/Authority: Who created the site and its content?
Is it clear what (if any) organizations are sponsoring the site? One quick indicator usually comes with the website’s URL. Websites produced under sponsorship of universities or government departments (a good bet for our topic) usually have URLs ending with ‘.edu ’ or ‘.gov.’ Non-profit and commercial organizations usually end their website URLs with ‘.org ’ and ‘.com.’ Be clear that non-profit doesn’t always mean excellent — these offerings run the gamut from excellent to biased to truly terrible and/or useless. Also keep in mind that some excellent scholars have chosen to offer very useful websites through commercial web providers, and so these site URLs will end in ‘com.’ But a great many of the very best sites are non-profit, so it is a good idea in any search to start by looking to see if such a site does exist.
Is there a link to a page describing the identity and/or goals of the site’s authors and/or sponsors? If there are any biases are they clearly stated? (Example: the National Organization for Women clearly states their feminist philosophy and advocacy.)
Does the site offer any way of making connection with the author(s) or sponsors (so that you might query or verify their legitimacy)? Note that a print address might be more convincing than an anonymous 
Is any advertising included on the site, and if so, is it clearly differentiated from the main site content? Is it likely in anyway to limit or bias this content (an addictive substance on a health advice site)?
Currency: If necessary, is the site kept up to date?
Not all sites need equal vigilance to keep them acceptably up to date. Once created, a site containing only some ancient documents might not need any updates that would be visible to the ordinary visitor. But as of 2003, a site on U.S. political women shouldn’t have as its last statistics the results of the 1996 elections.
When was the website or sub-page last revised (now increasingly stated at the bottom of the lead page)?
How up to date are its links (and are recently developed sites included)? How reliable are the links (do they annoy by simply failing to connect, or leading to “we have moved” messages)?
Subject matter: What purpose is the website supposed to serve, how and how well does it fulfill it?
What is its purpose and is it clearly stated and fulfilled?
What audience is it intended to serve?
How complete and accurate are its contents and links?
How valuable and/or useful (in absolute terms) are its contents to the specific topic you’re researching? Is it unique, or one of many websites?
How valuable are the site’s resources and/or links in relation to the range and availability of other (non-web) resources on its subject?
Connectivity and Workability: Is the site easy to use?
Is the site easy to access, or does it take forever to load, with working elements appearing until the whole thing has appeared?
Does it require special passwords or software to use many of its elements?
Does it work with all levels of interface, or only with the most sophisticated ones, which themselves can only be used with very high powered new computers.
Does it require lots of additional software (ex: Shockwave, Real Audio, etc)? If so, does it include easy-to-use links from which this software can be downloaded?
Is the site structure and contents clear as soon as accessed?
Does its design make it easy to read and view? This would include a non-intrusive background color or design, readable fonts, and viewable images. If there are icons, is their identity and what they are supposed to do immediately clear?
Is the site easy to navigate? Are there well-placed navigating tools (‘back,’ ‘forward,’ ‘return to top’ buttons, etc.)?
If it is a complex site, does it have a usable search engine? If so, does it work?
In Conclusion: In which of what many possible ways can historians use it?
Is it a source of primary documents (texts, pictures, data)?
Does it connect you to useful college-level or above secondary essays?
Does it provide teaching tips, lessons, background material etc.? For what level classes?
Is it a good introduction to a topic, and/or point you to useful traditional print or other resources?
What limits or problems does it include?