Factual page layout breakdown

Henry Paul

This is a fact based piece of text on how to roast a joint of beef. Obviously there are many different ways that you can roast a piece of beef but they all lead to the same outcome. Some things within the text could be seen as a choice and may not be necessary to complete the process of cooking the meat.

This piece of text is very clear and is laid out in three simple steps. They are gaining the cut of meat, marinating and then cooking. It even gives you a little tip on how to carve the meat when its done. Its set out very clearly and doesn’t barrage you with lots of text.

The diagrams are quite interesting and show the procedure well. They obviously aren't as helpful as actual photographs in terms of showing what the meat should actually look like at each stage. With that said most people do know what it should look like they just don’t know how to make it so.

It is quite a concise piece of text as it does minimise the amount of words that are used throughout. I’m sure there are many much longer ways to go about preparing and cooking beef but this is three simple steps. The page is filled up nicely and almost everything on the page is some useful piece of text.

This piece of text will predominantly be quite accurate in terms of the outcome it says it provides. Its on how to roast a joint of beef and that’s what it tells you to do. There may be a couple of debatable things but they are based on preference, for example what to marinade the meat in initially. This does avoid ambiguity and is very straight forward. It doesn’t go round in circles and it does tell you important things to know. There are times to stick to and measurements to follow. This isn't a very bias piece of writing because there aren't that many opinions involved. Its telling you how to do something that can be done in many different ways. You could argue that its bias towards this particular way of preparing beef but its not although its arguing against something. The register within this this piece of text is quite informal because it doesn’t need to be particularly well written for it to be understood.

The layout is quite straight foreword and follows quite a generic poster layout. The steps are shown in a clear, consecutive way.

This is quite a clear piece of text and it states obviously what it is teaching you about. Its teaching you the best way to perform a bank shot. It shows diagrams and boxes of text that seem quite sterile. It seems quite like its from a text book.

I would say that this is quite a concise piece of text. There isn’t a paragraph that’s longer than 3 lines and everything you are told is necessary to perfecting the bank shot.

This piece of text comes from the Olympics 2012 and should be quite accurate. I looked at a couple of other similar pieces. They gave similar statistics with very minor differences. This is actually quite an extensive diagram and covers almost every aspect of this particular shot.

http://www.wired.com/playbook/2011/03/physics-basketball-shots/2/

This piece isn't ambiguous and is quite straight forward in the way that its laid out. It could possibly look confusing to someone who has literally no clue about basketball. With that said its not intentionally unclear and is designed to be as clear as possible. The images are good for showing what they intend on showing but I think they look quite bland and aren’t very aesthetically pleasing. They have set up the images to mirror each other so it looks more structured. The images all seem to use a similar colour scheme and they all stand out from the white background.

The layout for this piece of text is quite structured. Its symmetrical from the middle and the diagrams on the left and right are the same size and shape. This makes it easy to follow alongside the text. I think they could have selected some more vibrant images than the ones that were chosen.

The fonts throughout are quite stereotypical of this kind of text book layout. There are some slight changes in the text sizes but that’s mainly between the titles and the bulk text. The font and text is clear.

It shows up well against the white background.

The register is formal because its an instructional diagram. With that said it doesn’t seem to stick to any strict lingual code. It will be aimed at quite a wide age range.

The title at the top left is in bold writing and draws the readers eye into the piece.

This is an article about Frankie Boyle making a racist remark. Its layout is quite stereotypical of a news report. It has a bold title that stands out well against the white background.

This should be quite an accurate piece because it was a news story released by the BBC. He is obviously arguing against it having any real racist intention. It is also quite clear and easy to follow as its not a hugely extensive news story. The story is about after he had lost his job with mock the week. This is about the after effects and the compensation he gained from the whole scenario.

This wasn’t that much of a bias piece because the article was written from an impartial point of view. If it was written by the daily mirror they would have been very bias against him as they were the initial people involved in the accusation.

There are a couple of codes of practice that could be part of this piece. One is the editors code of practice and another is the NUJ codes. The NUJ codes have to be strictly followed to ensure all the information released is true and fair.

The evidence behind both sides of the argument do prove to be quite clear because the case arose in the first place. This piece isn’t that bias because its just informing you of what happened after so evidence from both sides are clear.

It only has one image and its not a particularly interesting one. It’s a photograph of Frankie looking quite innocent, probably because he didn’t have a racist intent behind the words he used. The title is in a similar font to the text except its bolder and easier to read. Its quite simplistic but it does the job well and still looks professional.

This is a hand out for the NHS, it should be quite factual and shouldn’t have any miss informed information. Its clearly laid out and states all the important information obviously. It has quite a clean professional feel to it .

Its showing images of people being happy with the service they provide this makes them seem more customer friendly and less mechanic. The leaflet itself is quite concise. All the information given is relevant and appropriate.

The fonts for this suit the leaflet quite well. They are straight foreword, easy to read fonts.

The register for this piece is quite stereotypical of a leaflet. It is formal but not too formal meaning that it was created to be read by most ages. Its something you might just pick up regardless of whether or not your worried about the harms of mobile phones. Its just informative.

It has a structured layout that all fits neatly together. The headings are all in bold easy to read writing.

The fonts seem to be intentionally clear and all fit well together. Nothing on the page looks out of place.

The colour scheme is the same as the one the NHS use throughout all of their handouts, websites and other sources of information.The shade of blue they use is quite sterile and clean. It’s a good colour to represent the NHS.

This leaflet isn’t meant to be bias but it could be misconstrued as being so because it uses research gathered by the NHS. They are in most cases a reliable source, however some people believe mobiles cause no harm what so ever.