Annotated Bibliography Peer Review Hillger

Was it structured well enough?

The first one didn't explain much, but you mentioned that it was a short article so there wasn't much you could do there. Otherwise, I thought you explained the articles well and how they were beneficial for your project. - Huseby

~Structured well and explained how you plan to use them in your project. Jake

You have it structured very well. Hamnes

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?

I think there could be a little more information from the article in your summaries, especially facts and/or research data. I understand what your topic is, but I wish I could learn more from your summaries. - Huseby

~I think the summaries were sufficient given the word count for the assignment. They included enough information to understand the general concept of what the article was about. Jake

I think you did a good job with the summaries and explained why you are or aren't going to use the article as a source. Hamnes

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?

You could talk more about the questions from the CRAAP test, especially in the first two. You hit on the basic questions but by answering more of the CRAAP test, the reader gets more information from your summary. - Huseby

~Try to answer more questions on the CRAAP test. There are elements from each portion of the test, but more could be included. Jake

You could go more in depth with the CRAAP test and explain why it's a reliable source. Hamnes

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

I think you could go more in depth with how these article will (did) help your research and how it helps shape your argument. - Huseby

~The reflections explain whether or not you thought it was a credible source or not and whether you would use it in your paper. I think this is sufficient but short. Jake

I think you did a good job with explaining why these articles help your research but you could go into more detail on it. Hamnes

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

I understand the general topic, but I don't know where you stand on the subject. - Huseby

~I think the research is going well but there is no evidence in these annotations about how you feel about the topic. Jake

I am not sure on what your stance exactly is. Hamnes

What questions are you left with after reading these entries?

Which side are you on and do you think rules will ever be changed so that college athletes get paid? - Huseby

~Basically what stance do you take? Jake

Do you want college athletes to get paid and do you think anything like this will happen anytime soon? Hamnes

What are these annotations weaknesses?

They are pretty brief, but with short articles, it is tough to write a lot of information. I think it would be helpful for people reading this if there was more information (facts). Talk about the research that the authors found. - Huseby

~The first annotation was a bit brief. Jake

They are a little short, it would be helpful if there was more information. Hamnes

What are these annotations strengths?

It gave me knowledge of the subject and made me realize that if college athletes do start getting paid, it could potentially lead to a lower number of programs in Division I and completely change college sports. This is a topic I am interested in so it was nice to get some background knowledge on the subject. - Huseby

~Gave a good knowledge of the subject and how big the problem is and how much the athletes have to gain from this issue. Jake

Had good information on an interesting topic, and provides information I didn't think about before. Hamnes

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