You are here

Validity of Website PP

Submitted by lgorman on Fri, 02/09/2018 - 12:01

When reviewing the website “Save the Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus,” it is hard not to notice how much effort had been put into the design of the website. The website has a similar layout to most other conservation websites, including an FAQ, links for more information, and describing ways a person can help. However, upon further examination, it becomes quite obvious that the website is purely for humor. For example, on the tab that is supposed to include images of the creature, there are pictures of plastic toy octopuses in trees, and poorly photoshopped pictures of hawks carrying an octopus. The most interesting page on the website is the links page. On this page, there are three sets of additional websites: cephalopod websites, other animals of interest, and conservation websites. On the cephalopod websites, there is only information on the aquatic cephalopods and no mention of the tree octopus. Next, all of the other “animals of interest” that are listed are also satirical animals, like the “mountain walrus” and “prairie crayfish”. Finally, all of the conservation links are well known and reputable animal conservation websites, however upon research of those sites, the pacific northwest tree octopus is never mentioned. Ultimately, this website is a joke, and it can be noticed rather quickly if it is analyzed with any effort. The website is well made, but there is no semblance of truth to the information that it is stating, because its references do not support it at all.

Post:

Comments

I think this paragraph flows nicely but I don't think that the first sentence does a great job of letting the reader know what the paragraph is going to be about

Get rid of judgemental phrases such as "quite obvious" and "poorly." Do not write in a story-telling way by using "finally."