Book

Lewis, W. & Wigen, K. (1997). The Myth of Continents: A Critique of Metageography. Berkeley:
University of California.
1. Who is the primary audience for this source? How does the information meet the
expectations of that particular audience? Does this source fit your particular needs as a
researcher?
I would say the particular audiences are cartographers and people who study deep
geographical terms. The book meets the expectations of that audience because it is extremely
technical and it uses geographic history in a way that only those who know about geographical
issues could understand. The book is great to explain the history of the continental separations
and that fascinates me. The source does fit my particular needs because I needed background to
explain the concept of Continental models.
2. How, if at all, does the content of this source apply to your research project? Explain in
detail.
The main concept of my research project in analyzing how continental models are, in fact,
ideographs. Without a proper background about continental models, it is almost impossible to
discuss this issue. Therefore, the content of the book applies entirely to my research project in
the background phase.
3. Do you detect any biases, unsupported claims, dubious support, or faulty reasoning in this
source? If so, provide specific examples and explain how they affect the value of the
source. If not, discuss one or two exemplary instances of scholarship that you found in
the source.

I do not detect any. These two authors are very scholarly because they cite previous famous
work from archaeologists and other related fields to their claim. They focus on supporting
accurately their point.
4. What do the notes, bibliography, or works cited tell you about the source? Examine
aspects such as the currency of material, accuracy of citations and the thoroughness of
research.
It tells me that it is a well-written book. The currency is not as wonderful as it could be, but it
is necessary for us to understand that in Geography currency is a matter of likes. Geographers
ought to investigate and support their claim with older work because their field does not change
in a matter of 10 years. About the accuracy of citations and the thoroughness of the research, I
could not be more please. They do a splendid job digging deep in this critique.
5. Is the source up-to-date (no more than five years old)? How, if at all, does the age of the
source affect its relevancy? Explain in detail.
As explained in my previous question, in geography it is ok to expand the scope a couple
years more than other fields. It was published in 1997 but there is yet to come another book like
theirs.
6. Does the author have the experience and/or credentials necessary to be considered an
authority on the subject? Explain in detail.
Yes they do. Lewis and Wigen have been around this field for more than a decade now. Their
book has been reviewed over 10 times with both positive and negative critiques. This tells me
that their world is relevant to the field and scholars are interested in what they have to say.
7. What role does the publication or press play in this area of research?

It is the University of California. It is a well-known university, therefore it is more credible.

8. What impact has this source had on other scholarship? Consider factors such as its
originality, the number of times it has been cited, and any reviews of it.
As stated in question six, it has been reviewed over 10 times by scholars around the globe. It
clearly has had a huge impact in the geographic field.
9. What implications do you imagine this source will have for future research? Explain in
detail.
I consider this a very accurate and hard-to-beat book. Scholars are going to work hard to
surpass the expectations that this books has settle in the field.
10. On a scale of 1-5, where 1 means poor and 5 means excellent, how would you rate
the overall quality of this source? Briefly outline the rationale behind your rating.
5 It is accurate, relatively current for the field, written by well-known authors and it relates
directly to my project.
Academic databases

Reboul, A. (2012). Language: Between cognition, communication and culture. Pragmatics &
Cognition, 20(2), 295-316. doi:10.1075/pc.20.2.06reb
1. Who is the primary audience for this source? How does the information meet the
expectations of that particular audience? Does this source fit your particular needs as a
researcher?

The audiences could be both scholars and general people. It is technical enough to be deep in
details but the author makes it understandable and easy to follow. It is good for my project
because it fits exactly in the cognitive comparison between culture and communication.
2. How, if at all, does the content of this source apply to your research project? Explain in
detail.
It applies in the implications section. I will discuss two main implications and one of them is
about the sapir-whorf hypothesis and this article relates perfectly to it.
3. Do you detect any biases, unsupported claims, dubious support, or faulty reasoning in this
source? If so, provide specific examples and explain how they affect the value of the
source. If not, discuss one or two exemplary instances of scholarship that you found in
the source.
I do not detect any biases. They are very thorough and one instance of scholarship I found,
although simple, was the introduction or the abstract. It is simple and concise but it explains
everything technically and understandable.
4. What do the notes, bibliography, or works cited tell you about the source? Examine
aspects such as the currency of material, accuracy of citations and the thoroughness of
research.
It is accurate, recent and very interesting. The author used several other books and studies to
make his point across and that tells me that the article is based on trustworthy studies.
5. Is the source up-to-date (no more than five years old)? How, if at all, does the age of the
source affect its relevancy? Explain in detail.

It is up to date (2012). Since language does advance a little faster than geography (like explained
in previous sources) then it is relevant for me to back up my project with up-to-date information.
6. Does the author have the experience and/or credentials necessary to be considered an
authority on the subject? Explain in detail.
It is a peer reviewed article, so the author has won experience with this or maybe he already had
it.
7. What role does the publication or press play in this area of research?
It does no reveal the publication place or press.
8. What impact has this source had on other scholarship? Consider factors such as its
originality, the number of times it has been cited, and any reviews of it.
There are many studies about the same subject in the language area; however, this is unique
because not many of those studies combine culture and language in a reasonable way.
9. What implications do you imagine this source will have for future research? Explain in
detail.
This brings higher expectations for other author sin the future. In addition, this article shows
uniqueness in its field; maybe other authors will try to imitate this good feature.
10. On a scale of 1-5, where 1 means poor and 5 means excellent, how would you rate
the overall quality of this source? Briefly outline the rationale behind your rating.
4 It is relevant and accurate, however, the author could be more recognizable.

McGee, M. C. (1980). The "Ideograph": A Link Between Rhetoric and Ideology. Quarterly
Journal Of Speech, 66(1), 1-16.
1. Who is the primary audience for this source? How does the information meet the
expectations of that particular audience? Does this source fit your particular needs as a
researcher?
It is a scholarly audience. It meets their expectations because it is a deep analysis of the premises
for something to become an ideograph. It fits my project because those are the premises I use to
make my point across in analyzing continents as ideographs.
2. How, if at all, does the content of this source apply to your research project? Explain in
detail.
It applies entirely, like I said before, I use the criteria or premises that McGee uses to define the
ideograph.
3. Do you detect any biases, unsupported claims, dubious support, or faulty reasoning in this
source? If so, provide specific examples and explain how they affect the value of the
source. If not, discuss one or two exemplary instances of scholarship that you found in
the source.
I do not detect any biases because it is written in a very professional way. One example of
scholarship I found was the technicality of the tenets, for instance: An ideograph warrants the
use of power, it excuses behaviors and beliefs that are perceived to be eccentric.
4. What do the notes, bibliography, or works cited tell you about the source? Examine
aspects such as the currency of material, accuracy of citations and the thoroughness of
research.

It was an article published originally on the book Readings and Rhetorical Criticism in 2005. It
is not as current as it could be, but it is great material that still does not have any comparison to a
more recent source.
5. Is the source up-to-date (no more than five years old)? How, if at all, does the age of the
source affect its relevancy? Explain in detail.
It is more than five years old. It is actually from 2005. The age is relevant for most fields but in
all of my article I found interesting that they are unique to their field and moreover, unique to my
project.
6. Does the author have the experience and/or credentials necessary to be considered an
authority on the subject? Explain in detail.
Yes he does. He has written several articles that got published in well-known books. We like to
use his articles in the Speech Performance concentration here at OU.
7. What role does the publication or press play in this area of research?
To be published in the Journal of Speech is a great deal. It remarks the preponderancy of his
work.
8. What impact has this source had on other scholarship? Consider factors such as its
originality, the number of times it has been cited, and any reviews of it.
His claims have been reviewed a couple of times and the fact that his article was published in the
book mentioned before says good things about him.
9. What implications do you imagine this source will have for future research? Explain in
detail.

This article is in depth and very scholarly. I would argue it will be prevalent in the future. What
is unique about it is that although its main audience is scholarly, McGee explains things so well
that it could be partially understood by general audiences. I love that about his work.
10. On a scale of 1-5, where 1 means poor and 5 means excellent, how would you rate
the overall quality of this source? Briefly outline the rationale behind your rating.
5 this source gives me the basic analysis of the ideographic meaning to study the continental
models. I absolutely love working with McGees work because as I stated before, it is
exceptionally in depth and critically thought.
World wide web articles
Lind, M. (1997, November 2). Ever Since Gondwanaland [Review of the book The myth of
continents] The New York Times. Retrieved from
https://www.nytimes.com/books/97/11/02/reviews/971102.02lindlt.html
1. Who is the primary audience for this source? How does the information meet the
expectations of that particular audience? Does this source fit your particular needs as a
researcher?
Both scholars and general. It fits my needs because it gives a different perspective of my main
source and also provides different information about the continental models. It is more of a
provocative piece.
2. How, if at all, does the content of this source apply to your research project? Explain in
detail.

It applies in some parts. This particular article gets very technical at some point and I do not take
into account many of the critiques that Lind makes to the book by Lewis and Wigen, however, I
do take all of the continental model background that they provide.
3. Do you detect any biases, unsupported claims, dubious support, or faulty reasoning in this
source? If so, provide specific examples and explain how they affect the value of the
source. If not, discuss one or two exemplary instances of scholarship that you found in
the source.
I do detect biases in this work. I think it is meant to be controversial and therefore it is ok to be a
little biased in their case. A book review is not always meant to preached and celebrate the book.
Sometimes the author needs sincere feedback from others in the field.
4. What do the notes, bibliography, or works cited tell you about the source? Examine
aspects such as the currency of material, accuracy of citations and the thoroughness of
research.
They did a LOT of research. They have an unbelievable amount of citations and I think that
demonstrates the accuracy of the work.
5. Is the source up-to-date (no more than five years old)? How, if at all, does the age of the
source affect its relevancy? Explain in detail.
It is a review from the same year the book was published, so 1997. I have stated several times in
this assignment that in the Geography field a 10-year scope is not a big deal when it comes to
sources because of the originality of the work.
6. Does the author have the experience and/or credentials necessary to be considered an
authority on the subject? Explain in detail.

I never heard from him but while looking in some databases, I got to see that he has a couple of
peer reviewed articles.
7. What role does the publication or press play in this area of research?
The publication press is The New York Times. This gives is review a huge academic support
because of the fame of the newspaper.
8. What impact has this source had on other scholarship? Consider factors such as its
originality, the number of times it has been cited, and any reviews of it.
People have been looking for other perspectives on the book and Lind has been the answer to
many. His work is a nice way to analyze such a great work from different points of view.
9. What implications do you imagine this source will have for future research? Explain in
detail.
People nowadays do not know how to criticize without destroying the reputation of an author. I
think Lind is an example for future writers as to how one is supposed to write a book review.
10. On a scale of 1-5, where 1 means poor and 5 means excellent, how would you rate
the overall quality of this source? Briefly outline the rationale behind your rating.
5- This source does not only provide great background but it claims arguments that my paper
also does.
Monmonier, M. (1996). How to Lie with Maps. Retrieved from
http://www.markmonmonier.com/how_to_lie_with_maps_14880.htm
1. Who is the primary audience for this source? How does the information meet the
expectations of that particular audience? Does this source fit your particular needs as a
researcher?

General readers are Monmoniers audience. It meets the audiences expectations because it is
easy to follow and it explains everything thoroughly at the same time.
2. How, if at all, does the content of this source apply to your research project? Explain in
detail.
The content does not apply entirely to my project; it actually applies to just one of my social
implications. In my project, I explain how the perpetuation of the antisocial in ideographs
portrays a bad imagery of the geographic relativism through maps. This particular source
explains why maps are the central way through which continental models are communicated.
3. Do you detect any biases, unsupported claims, dubious support, or faulty reasoning in this
source? If so, provide specific examples and explain how they affect the value of the
source. If not, discuss one or two exemplary instances of scholarship that you found in
the source.
There is a little bit of biases towards the application of maps in society. They assume a lot that
our generation does not use maps but I do not see any certain evidence to support such a
statement.
4. What do the notes, bibliography, or works cited tell you about the source? Examine
aspects such as the currency of material, accuracy of citations and the thoroughness of
research.
The book from which the website is based had an extensive bibliography. That tells me that they
did a lot of research to support most of their claims.
5. Is the source up-to-date (no more than five years old)? How, if at all, does the age of the
source affect its relevancy? Explain in detail.

It is from 1996. I would not say it affects the relevancy of the content but it does affect the data
they used in that time. However, I am interested in their definitions of maps, not in the data they
used.

6. Does the author have the experience and/or credentials necessary to be considered an
authority on the subject? Explain in detail.
He does have plenty of work for cartographers and I believe that talks positively about him.
Several scholars have reviewed his website and his books.
7. What role does the publication or press play in this area of research?
The University of Chicago is a well-known academic institution. I think it enhances
Monmoniers work.
8. What impact has this source had on other scholarship? Consider factors such as its
originality, the number of times it has been cited, and any reviews of it.
I could not find any trustworthy information about reviews, but in the website, there is a section
for critiques that scholars have written on and it seems very professional.
9. What implications do you imagine this source will have for future research? Explain in
detail.
I think our society is becoming more and more technological each time, maybe this book will
disappear with the pass of the years due to its old-fashioned style.
10. On a scale of 1-5, where 1 means poor and 5 means excellent, how would you rate
the overall quality of this source? Briefly outline the rationale behind your rating.

4- I use the source for the definitions and not the date, there I believe it is great to clarify major
concepts in my research project.