RC 1000

Peer Review Worksheet: Annotated Bibliography

Writer:_____Levi Thompson__________________________ Reviewer:_____Matthew Van

Vliet

For the writer:

1. Briefly identify your topic, focus, and thesis question/statement for the research project.

2. What in particular do you want your peer reviewer to check?

_______________________________________________________________________
For the reviewer:

1. Is there proposal that briefly explains the topic, focus, thesis question, and at least a few
research questions for the researched argument? If so, is it clear and thorough enough?
How might it be improved?

Yes, there is an introduction in the beginning paragraph, there is a thesis statement, “I wish to be
able to sit and educate myself enough on the topic to plainly state that either veganism is
something everyone should look towards, or if it’s an option to those only against the way meat is
produced.” There aren’t really any research questions aside from the initial “is meat beneficial to
the body?”

2. Are the citations themselves properly formatted using MLA style? Point out any problems
you notice on the draft itself (e.g. not alphabetical, or all caps, or not properly formatted for Web
sources).

Yes, only lacking the annotations.

3. Do the sources look relevant, recent, reputable, and varied enough (that is, not all Web sites
or all scholarly journals)? You might need to discuss the sources with the writer a bit to
determine the relevance & variety issue.

The link coming from WebMD may not be the most reliable source, but the U.S. National
Laboratory link is definitely a credible source.

4. Does each annotation include all three sections: summary, evaluation of the source’s
credibility and quality, and a brief explanation of how the source will fit into the writer’s
research? Point out on the draft itself any annotations that are missing pieces.

N/A.
5. Is there at least one source that represents an alternative view? That is, if most of the sources
are pro-GMO, is there at least one to address the drawbacks? Remember, awareness of
counterargument is essential when doing effective rhetorical work; otherwise, it’s just another
‘stacked deck,’ which is a logical fallacy that intellectually-based, academic work should seek to
avoid.

Yes, “Might A Vegan Diet Be Healthy, or Healthier?” believes in the benefits of a vegan diet
over one including meat.

6. Plagiarism check: from what you can tell, are the annotations in the student’s own words, or
are there any parts that sound incompletely paraphrased? Note on the draft any passages that
might sound problematic.

None of the research proposal appears to be problematic.

7. What did you find most interesting or impressive about this draft?

This proposal narrows in on exactly what the writer would like to study, being very clear.

8. How might the proposal be improved or strengthened?

I don’t quite see where most of the sources are utilised within the paper.

9. What kinds of sources or evidence should the writer include in the remaining citations? What
would help flesh out this argument and make a rock-solid thesis—both in terms of argument or
claims as well as types of sources?

It could be more useful to flesh out your point of view within your thesis, maybe including that
you believe meat to be beneficial to one’s diet, so the reader has a clear idea of what you’re
arguing.