Annotated Bibliography Peer Review Emilie Brouse

Am I writing the listed citations in correct MLA format?

Matraca McKay I believe you have cited them correctly.

Clunies-Ross, Tracey and Hildyard, Nicholas. The Politics of Industrial Agriculture. Florence: Routledge, 2013. February 2014. Print.

Farmers and policy-makers have recognized the need for change in our approach to agriculture. At issue is the question of power– of who's in control of the land and what it produces. Most of the changes under discussion are said to actually contribute to the underlying causes of the damage. The result will only be greater intensification of farming, environmental destruction and inequality. There are no simple alternatives to industrial agriculture. There are, however, people all throughout the world who can work together toward a new approach- toward an agriculture that, in Wendell Berry's words, 'depletes neither soil nor people'.
I think that The Politics of Industrial Agriculture is a greatly useful read. It causes me to consider the fact that sustainable agriculture can mean different things to different people, and to really look further into whose interests are benefitting and whose are suffering. The information presented was reliable and the source unbiased- it was written by an ecologist. The purpose set forth by Hildyard and Clunies-Ross in The Politics of Industrial Agriculture was to inform consumers of the revolution that's occurred in agriculture in the last 40 years and the negative effects that followed. In chapter one, they propose that the very basis of agriculture is being undermined by the expansion of the wider industrial economy, the "energy balance sheet" is paid little attention, and that global warming threatens to render many areas either less producive or completely unproductive agriculturally. I found this analysis completely relevant and supportive of the argument at hand.
The Politics of Industrial Agriculture fits into my research because it addresses the major impacts that industrial agriculture has on everyone from farmers and workers to animals in third world countries. The spectrum of negative impact it presented was very influential and helped to further my passion for the cause. I'll use this source in my project to impact readers with the ugly nature of the actual processes it describes.

Boody, George and DeVore, Brian. BioScience. Vol. 56, No. 10. Ewing: University of California Press, 2006. February 2014. Print.

The issue of the BioScience monthly journal entitled "Redesigning Agriculture" is an American Institute of Biological Sciences Publication that presents the significant costs associated with an industrial approach to agriculture. It suggests that this approach relies on a disconnect between crops and livestock and an emphasis on maximizing production- excluding all else. This break, suggest Boody and Devore, has created a highly dysfunctional nutrient cycle. A significant portion of these nutrients, along with other pollutants, leave our farms in the form of water and air pollution. The discussion of ethics must be applied to the research and practice of agriculture. Agriculture must be redesigned in order to sustain our farm systems, and these farmers need incentive and reinforcement from society.
I find this source to be absolutely useful in my argument for sustainable agriculture. It's unique in that it's an actual hard copy source- one that can be, at times, difficult to discover. The information presented proved reliable and valid, and the author was absolutely objective. The goal of BioScience, as a whole, is to publish timely and authoritative overviews of current research in biology, accompanied by essays and discussions on education, public policy, history, and the conceptual foundation of the biological sciences.
This journal fits into my research because it presents timely and authoritative overviews in regard to my focal issue. It's helpful in that it presents a lot of great research and references to other related essays and discussions. I plan to use the Bioscience journal in my research project with references to more informative articles on the subject of agriculture. It definitely changed the way I think about the ethics and philosophy of agricultural practices as a whole.

•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?
The first summary could use more references to the actual article. It seems slightly vague at this point and I can't tell what the article is actually about right now. In the second article, however, it's far more clear what the article is about. In the first article I have questions such as what can people throughout the world do to work to a new approach?-Michael Hanson
Matraca McKay I completely agree with what Michael has said.
•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?
Currency-In your paragraph you don't mention how recent (and thusly relevent) the information is. You may want to add the date it was written and if that date affects your opinion of the information. Relevance-You do a good job of saying why the sources relate to your topic. Authority-You do a good job of writing who wrote the different articles and if they have any bias to the issue. Accuracy-The accuracy seems fine. Purpose-Well done writing about why the individual sources wrote like they did. -Michael Hanson
Matraca McKay Yes, it seems you have used the CRAAP test. Good job with the criteria based judgements.
•Are the reflection sections complete enough that you understand how the writer responded to the sources? Could they include more information?
It definitely shows that you want to use these sources in your paper. I would advise not using the fact that they support what you want to write about. Instead I would write that they have information that has to do with your topic. When you say that you want to use it because it supports your paper it makes the paper seem too one-sided and not open to using sources that may have an alternative opinion.-Michael Hanson
Matraca McKay Agree with what is said above ^^
•Based on these two entries, in what direction do you think the writer's research is going?
It's fairly clear to me that you're against the use of industrial agriculture in third world countries and are concerned with the impact that it has.-Michael Hanson
Matraca McKay It looks like your research is going pretty well, good job!
•What questions are you left with after reading these entries?
The second source describes it, but in the first summary I ask how are industrial agricultural processes affecting people and wildlife in a negative way?-Michael Hanson
Matraca McKay No questions.
•What are these annotations' weaknesses?
First article has the weakness of being vague. Second has the weakness of being dated (2006).-Michael Hanson
Matraca McKay Just add a little more detail to your first summary.
•What are these annotations' strengths?
They both have to do with the subject at hand and the second article has plenty of good facts and reasons to support its cause.-Michael Hanson
Matraca McKay You seem to have good sources and your annotations seem pretty good, good job!

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