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 the appearance of increasing numbers of assignments, like the one you have, asking students to practice evaluating the academic worth of one or more chosen websites. The following criteria will help you evaluate your chosen website or websites for its/their value to the academic study of whatever specific area of knowledge addressed in the site(s).

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?  (Ex: 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 email address (ex: guru@wiznet.com).
• 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 US political women shouldn't have as its last statistics the results of the 1996 elections, or a site on Recent Developments in the Middle East be unaware of the current breakdown of the Palestinian peace process.
• When was the website or subpage 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 study of women's history? 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?