Hello, my name is Kobe Voss and I am a freshman at UofA. My major is Psychology B.S.

When
revising, I focus mostly on formatting, punctuation, and grammar errors. I do this because these
are easy points to get, it just takes a bit of effort. My goal is to suggest how you can improve
your writing without telling you what you should do. I feel ok with getting peer reviewed, just
annoyed if I have to go back and fix things lol.
 Questions Emoji

1. Does the APA title page look like the student title page in the APA Style page? What
should be adjusted? Is the title repeated on the first body page of the bibliography?

Mostly follows APA title. Should be centered on page. “Annotate Bibliography”

should be “Annotated Bibliography” and should be bolded. Title of paper should be
directly below and bolded. “Rogers” should be the full instructor’s name. no “th” on 😀
8th. Title is repeated on first body page.

2. Look at two annotations, one scholarly and one popular. Number your answer for each
one. Look at how the author describes the main idea or argument of the source. Do
they express only the main idea, or do there seem to be unnecessary details or other
information? Explain.

1. Melinda O’Brien. The claim doesn’t take a specific standpoint. Is social media good or
bad for young users? All info included is necessary to understanding the main idea of
the study. 😊
2. Rae Jacobson. Main idea is to the point and doesn’t include unnecessary details.

3. Do you detect any presence of plagiarism or patchwriting? If so, point it out.

No plagiarism detected.

4. Take note in one annotation how the author explains how the researcher develops their
argument, or in the case of primary research, draws conclusions. I’ve called this the
“method” or “support for the author’s argument.” Is the method of the research (if
primary) explained with enough information to give the reader a sense of its credibility
and usefulness for their research? If secondary research, does the writer sufficiently
explore how the author supports the argument with rhetorical strategies? If applicable,
does the writer explain the chain, sequence, or logic of the author’s argument? Explain.
Shaohai Jiang. Author doesn’t elaborate on what types of “key points” the researchers made
in their research. Not sufficient. ☹️

5. If there is one, does the introduction make connections between sources that the reader
may not have noticed otherwise? What did you learn about the sources in the
introduction that you would not have learned just by reading the annotations?
n/a

6. Note one aspect of each annotation that could be improved or one aspect that is
especially effective. Explain your answers.
Annotation 1: Listing the number of studies that were found to be effective is a positive and
is part of the main idea. Good job for not listing every one of the studies.

Annotation 2: Needs more thorough explanation as to why the source is useful.

Annotation 3: Explain how social media use impacts learning in class. Needs a more
thorough main idea.
Annotation 4: Support for the claim does not justify why the source is credible. It only adds
onto the main idea. Who is Rae Jacobson? How is he in a position worthy of telling us the 🤔
effects of social media on teenagers?
7. Tell your peer what you learned about writing the annotated bibliography after reading
their work.

I found out through this process that annotated bibliographies are hard to summarize while
still being short. You don’t want to overelaborate, but also give enough details about what 💪🏼
the source is. Essentially, give lots of details in a super concise manner. It’s harder than it
seems.