Peer Annotated Bibliography
- Izabela Zbyrowska
- Feb 2, 2018
- 2 min read
During the peer annotated bibliography review one thing I definitely noticed was that they knew the structure well. both of my peers had three paragraphs like needed. There are two things that I would say my peers were missing in their annotated bibliographies: to introduce their source in the very first paragraph; and to adress their new source with one other specific source they already used in the last paragraph of the bibliography. One other thing that they would sometimme miss was to put a key quotation to help the readers to understand the article better. (98)
Mainly their bibliographies were structured and written very nicely. They did a good job inntroducing and talking a little bit about the author of their source. They also explained their source and gave a very good summary of it. When they did put an important quote from their source it was very organized and gave me a good idea of what it is talked about. The main thing that they can work on to improve would be comparing their new source to another source of theirs. Overall they did an excellent annotated bibliographies.
Mallory: "History of Fake News" by Joanna M Burkhardt
"With Facebook, Blogs, and Fake News, Teens Reject Journalistic Objectivity" by Regina Marchi
David: “The Pro's and Con's of Performance Enhancing Drugs" by Kodjo
"Performance Enhancing Drugs"
Your second source is academic as well.
Marchi, Regina. "With Facebook, Blogs, and Fake News, Teen Reject Journalistic “Objectivity””.Journal of Communication Inquiry, SAGE, 2012.
The Author name, article name in quotation marks, title of the web magazine in italics, publisher name, publication date, URL, the date of access
You have three paragraphs.
Your first paragraph introduces the author, and why this information is related in your research but it does not give an introduction of this source. Your second paragraph summarizes the article. The only thing I would put here is a key quotation of some sort. Your third paragraph does not connect this source with another source of yours.
Annotation was good and descriptive. I would just put better comparison for this and your other source.
Commenti