Annotated Bibliography Peer Review Livia

Questions for Reviewers

Have I included enough information for the CRAAP Test?

  • Beth - I believe you have added plenty of information for the CRAAP test, maybe add information about the biases of these sources though?
  • Ryan: Everything seems to be there. They all seem very recent and applicable to your argument. I agree with Beth about info on the biases.

Based on the information I provided, do you think each source is a credible source?

  • Beth - It seems like each of these sources are credible.
  • Ryan: Time, the NCAA and USA Today are all credible sources. The lack of author on the USA Today article is strange though.

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?

  • Beth - The summaries are very detailed. There is quite a bit of data examples in them that could be left out.
  • Ryan: They are very detailed and do lead me to understand what the source is about without actually reading it. Do you think it's sad that Universities are spending that much ore on sports than their primary function of education? Is the $3000-$5000 per game or per season?

Did the reviewer evaluate the sources using the CRAAP test? Do you see criteria based judgments about each letter (currency, relevance, authority, accuracy, purpose)? What is missing?

  • Beth - I notices that you covered all of the CRAAP Test material.
  • Ryan: They were all very current and relevant. The USA Today article lacked authority a bit not having an author. Both the Time and NCAA articles seemed accurate and showed their purpose.

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

  • Beth - Some of the responses to the articles are slightly short. They could include more about how you will use the articles.
  • Ryan: I get a general idea of how you responded to each article. The second response is a bit short, especially sense that article seemed to have a lot of info about the NCAA. Explain how you will utilize that info for your argument. The response to the Time article was well done.

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

  • Beth - It seems like your research is going well. I am just not sure how your stance on the topic will end up in your argument.
  • Ryan: It appears that you are leaning towards the payment top student athletes.

What questions are you left with after reading these entries?

  • Beth - I do not have any questions.
  • Ryan: If student athletes are to be paid, does this money come strictly from ticket/concession sales? How often and on what scale will they be paid? Will better players be paid more then their fellow teammates or will everyone on the team receive the same cut of the profits?

What are these annotations weaknesses?

  • Beth - These articles all seem to cover the same exact things concerning you topic.
  • Ryan: The USA Today article is headed in the right direction for a counter-argument. Perhaps find the source mentioned in the Time article that claims paying athletes will unbalance competition just to show both sides of the story.

What are these annotations strengths?

  • Beth - All of these articles are from a credible source and address your topic directly.
  • Ryan: The sources are all very well known and credible and pertinent to your topic.
Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License