Annotated Bib Peer Review Bw


Brian G. Henning. "Standing in Livestock's 'Long Shadow': The Ethics of Eating Meat on a Small Planet." Ethics & the Environment 16.2 (2011): 63-93. Project MUSE. Web. 10 Feb. 2014. <>.

This essay’s main arguments are that meat is not environmentally friendly and has health risks. The author states that meat causes depletion and pollution of waterways, deforestation of land, and global warming. Most livestock are actually raised in concentrated animal feeding operations which brings up the problem for spreading diseases easily within the livestock. Also humans are over consuming meat and it is causing obesity, chronic and no communicable diseases. The author brought up facts stating that one- third of an average person’s daily protein comes from meat sources which is a very high amount because humans don’t need any meat in their diet to actually survive.

Brian Henning published this essay in 2011 as part of his work as a professor at Gonzaga University. This is considered relevant for my topic. Brian is qualified to talk about this topic because he specializes in the environment and ethics of global climate change. He has written a book called The Ethics of Creativity: beauty, Morality, and nature in a Processive Cosmos. He uses other resources to help prove and shape his argument and published his essay on Project Muse. Project Muse is a credible website to get reliable information from on many topics.

This source provides me with good information on how livestock impacts the environment and provides me with good facts to put in my paper about how much the average person eats and how it causes obesity which is something my other sources don’t mention.

Harding, Anne. "Study: Too Much Red Meat May Shorten Lifespan." CNN. Cable News Network, 13 Mar. 2012. Web. 09 Feb. 2014. <>.

Anne Harding writes an article to Americans about how substituting fish, poultry, and nuts is a good source to meet the nutrient requirements that are received from red meat. The article doesn’t only touch base on red meat from cows but that hot dogs, bacon, and salami are also bad and may even be worse than red meat. Harding also touches base about that red meat at high temperatures can produce carcinogens on the surface. If Americans substituted one serving daily with fish, poultry, or nuts then the risk of getting cancer decrease 7% to 19%.

This article was updated in 2012 which makes it recent for my topic. I found this article from CNN, which is considered a great source to get information from. The author of the article is a journalist who focuses her writing only on health topics. She has worked as a medical editor for Reuters Health and she was a managing editor at Medical Tribune News Service. She is also the author of a book called Milestones in Health and Medicine. Since the author has a background in health and medicine, she then is qualified to talk about the topic of the article. The purpose of this article is to inform readers, mainly people looking into going vegetarian about the health risks of meat and what you can do to substitute.

This source will help me provide more depth with my argument. It provides me with a great study that was performed that I can use in my paper and to talk about what has been found in meat that causes these health risks. This article talks about what vegetarians can do to substitute meat, which is a new aspect I can add to my paper.

To my reviewers: Do I have any grammar errors that I have missed?
After reading my two sources, do you think they qualify to be used?

1. Are the summaries detailed enough that you understand what the source is all about? Are there details that the writer included that are unnecessary to the summary? What questions are you left with after reading the summaries?
2. Did the reviewer evaluate the sources using the CRAAP test? Do you see criteria based judgements about each letter (currency, relevance,authority, accuracy, purpose)? What is missing?
3. Are the reflection sections complete enough that you understand how the writer responded to the sources? Could they include more information?
4. Based on these two entries, in what direction do you think the writer's research is going?
5. What questions are you left with after reading these entries?
6. What are these annotations' weaknesses?
7. What are these annotations' strengths?

Review by Mitch Vollhaber
The only grammatical error I found was in the second to last sentence of your summary for your second source. I would consider revising the phrase "Harding also touches base about that red meat…" It just sounds a little weird. Based on your annotations, I think your sources are credible enough to use. I would just be careful about the first source since it is about the ethics side of the issue which can become very opinionated. I think your summaries are thorough enough to give the reader an idea of what the source is about. Decent job using the CRAAP test, maybe add something about the purpose of your first source. Reflection paragraphs are well written and are filled with the required information. Based on these sources, it sounds like you are going to make the argument that meat is unhealthy and bad for the environment. I would say the CRAAP test is the only weakness of these annotations. The reflection and summary sections are the annotation's strengths.

Review by Belinda Corniea
I agree with Mitch about rewording this sentence, ""Harding also touches base about that red meat…". It does sound a little weird. I think these sources are okay to use for your paper. Both of your summaries look good. I was able to follow them and understand what is going on in that source. I think you did a decent job on the CRAAP test. Both of your reflections are great. Your response to the sources are clear and you don't need to add anymore information. From reading your two sources, I think you are going to argue that meat isn't healthy and bad for the environment. I also think that the CRAAP test is your annotation's weakness and that the reflections are your annotation's strength.

Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License