Annotated Bibliography Peer Review B E

Do you believe this topic is worth all of the research and an argument?

  • Ryan: Yes, sulfite mining is an important topic to be discussed and studied. I liked the brilliant way Wisconsin lawmakers restricted mining by saying: "show us a mine that did not pollute for 10 years while operating that also did not pollute 10 years after closing and we will let yo mine."
  • Livia: Absolutely! Although I don't know much about sulfide mining, that's all the more reason for someone to research and argue about.

Have I provided enough information in the summaries?

  • Ryan: Yes the information in the summaries captured the sources very well in the authors words. I would like to see an environmental study from scientific journal articles rather than just sites created by environmentalist anti-mining organizations. Maybe even a study done by the mining companies to show their side of the argument. -Ryan
  • Livia: The information you provided is very descriptive and explanatory of each article. I am able to understand the gist of the articles without having to read them.

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?

  • Ryan: The summarization of the sources was done well. They pointed out the differences between each source and why it was chosen. But who actually wrote the sources? What's the other side of the story? Play miners advocate, difficult as that may be.
  • Livia: Your summaries are very easily understandable with great use of vocabulary. I believe all the details you included were necessary in order to understand it. The only thing I would criticize is a few (very few) grammar mistakes, like run-on sentences or repeating of ideas in the same paragraph. Otherwise, it looks great!

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?

  • Ryan: The sources provided were all current and relevant to the topic. The authority was limited to mostly environmental and state organizations, there were no authors listed. You can't always trust an organization to be unbiased. The second source seemed really good, maybe cite some of the PhD's articles that were linked there. The accuracy was there and they definitely showed purpose.
  • Livia: The sources you provided were relevant to your topic as well as credible based on your evaluations. I don't see anything on when the information was published (currency). Also, include more information about Friends of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness because I don't know anything about them. I'm sure they're a credible source, but since I don't know who/what they are I don't know that. Your "intended audience" is implied, but I would suggest clearly stating exactly who the articles are pin-pointed at to read. Other than that, your evaluations are clear and concise!

Are the reflection sections complete enough that you understand how the writer responded to the sources? Could they include more information?

  • Ryan: Yes, I understand the authors response through their reflections, I understand where they are coming from and which side of the argument they are on. There was plenty of information shown against the likelihood of a sulfite mine that does not and will never pollute. There is already enough mercury in the water and it would be a sad day indeed when the Boundary Waters are polluted with sulfuric acid.
  • Livia: Your reflections sections are detailed but simple so you get your point/thoughts across about the article. I like your inclusion of your own opinions about some of the information you found in the different articles. I wouldn't include anything more in your reflections.

Based on these three entries, in what direction do you think the writer's research is going?

  • Ryan: The research provided is definitely leaning towards the Anti-sulphite mining side of things. Can't say I blame them, it's the more logical side to argument. Long term if the mines happen they will eventually pollute. The only way to ensure no pollution is to prevent the mine all together.
  • Livia: Based on your sources and reflections, you seem to be leaning towards anti-sulfide mining.

What questions are you left with after reading these entries?

  • Ryan: what is the mining companies argument? Show some of the research done by the scientists on their pay role then provide a scientific journal article that pokes it full of holes.
  • Livia: Like Ryan's comment^, would you consider including arguments from the mining companies' perspective? Maybe state some of the "pros" of sulfide mining, and then debunk each one with your research to make it clear that sulfide mining does more harm than good.

What are these annotations weaknesses?

  • Ryan: They are perhaps a bit biased and slightly repetitive.
  • Livia: I agree with Ryan, but the sources are credible for your research.

What are these annotations strengths?

  • Ryan: They have a coherent voice and show plenty of evidence of where the reaserch is headed. They seem passionate about the preservation of Minnesota's waters and the environment itself.
  • Livia: The sources are very credible and provide all the information about the harm of sulfide mining. The also seem to back up their statements with evidence, which reiterates its credibility.
Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License