What sources can be considered as credible?
materials published within last 10 years;
research articles written by respected and well-known authors;
websites registered by government and educational institutions (.gov, .edu, .ac);
academic databases (i.e. Academic Search Premier or JSTOR);
materials from Google Scholar.
What sources should be avoided?
out-of-date materials (published over 10 years ago);
posts from social networks (i.e. facebook);
blogs;
research articles without citations;
websites ending in .com, .org, .net etc
Your annotated bibliography will not be comprehensive — that is, you will not need to look at everything that is written about your topic. Instead, find a minimum of five sources and analyze them. Please utilize credible websites and academic databases. You could feasibly find all of your information online.
Analyze each of your sources in a separate paragraph. Include the following information about each source:
A reference page listing of your source in APA format
The format of your source (book, magazine article, webpage, etc.)
Where your source comes from, who produced it, and how you got access to it
Also, please answer the following questions for each source:
How accurate and reliable is your source? Is it reliable, sufficient, and relevant? What is the purpose of the publication or Web site? (Is is to sell a product? To inform? To shape opinion about an issue or cause? Is it a corporation, an organization, or a government agency?)
How does the author’s viewpoint affect the presentation of information and opinion? What are the author’s allegiances? Does the author treat one side of an issue more favorably than another? Is the author’s bias hidden or stated?
How useful will the information in the source be for your paper?
Example of what you will have for each source:
Author, A. A., & Author, B. B. (Date of publication). Title of article. Title of Journal, volume number, page range. Retrieved from http://www.someaddress.com/full/url/
Rauch analyzes the rhetorical approaches inherent in two articles from Conservation Biology concerning the species status of the red wolf. Instead of adhering to the popular view of scientists using only statistical facts and non-biased observations, Rauch finds that these two articles employ many common rhetorical strategies. In arguing about DNA and hybridism, much attention is given to how these two opposing writers appeal to values such as “professional authority and responsibility” (289). Conveniently organized with section titles, Rauch’s case study in conservation rhetoric adequately illustrates the non-empirical quality of most biological topics. Rauch fails to adequately discuss the subjective nature of terms like “species” and in doing so misses an opportunity to examine how contemporary conservationist rhetoric is actually a socially constructed framework.
Last Completed Projects
| topic title | academic level | Writer | delivered |
|---|