PEER REVIEW: ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Learning to give and receive feedback is an essential part of the writing process. Receiving feedback from peers engaged in a similar writing task can be extremely useful when revising your own work; however, offering feedback to another writer can inform your own process of revision by teaching you to notice inconsistencies, errors, or weaknesses in someone else’s writing. Additionally, aspects that you admire about another student’s work can inspire you to try similar tactics or techniques on your own.
Written feedback should address any questions the writer of the piece posed to your group, as well as the questions listed below. For this assignment, you should aim to write about a page of notes for each partner.
• Does the writer include at least five sources, and are those sources listed in MLA format? Is the formatting correct? [This is a yes/no question; if the formatting is not correct, let the writer know what their mistakes are.]
• Evaluate your partner’s sources. Do the sources look relevant, recent, and reputable? Note any sources that you think might not be appropriate. Screen for very old publications, biased and opinion-based writing, fake news, or off-topic sources that might not be appropriate. [If all of the sources are appropriate, let the writer know that.]
• Does the annotation include both a summary of the source and a concise evaluation of the resource as it pertains to the topic/research question? [This is a yes/no question; if the answer is no, let the writer know what they are missing.]
• Is the annotation clear and easy to understand? Mark any phrasings or sections that you find confusing and suggest ways that the writer could revise for clarity.
• Is the annotation grammatically and structurally correct? Make any corrections to usage or language that might improve the writing.
• A major component of this assignment is summarizing with concision. Does the annotation follow the word count requirements? Are there any places where the annotation is too long, or any places where the writer needs to elaborate? Mark or list sections that could be cut and sections that need to be expanded as needed.
• Plagiarism check: From what you can tell, are the annotations the writer’s own words? Might there be any parts that sound incompletely paraphrased? Mark any sections that might sound problematic for the writer to review. [If everything looks fine, let them know that as well.]
• What are some questions that you might suggest the writer explore in future research? Are there any “holes” in the research? What’s missing, and what keywords might they use to find additional information?
• What did you find interesting or impressive about this bibliography? Mark or list a few things that you admired so the writer knows what they are doing well.
I have attached my classmate’s bibliography please follow instructions. Thank you
