RC 1000

Peer Review Worksheet: Annotated Bibliography

Writer: Elizabeth Edwards Reviewer: Ben Nichols

For the writer:

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

My topic for this project is the effects of veganism on humans and the Earth’s environment,
focusing more towards not necessarily enforcing the diet but merely that we as a society decrease
the amount of meat in our daily diet.

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

Make sure my topic and/or thesis statement is easy to understand, I tend to ramble around the
subject instead of stating it outright. Justify my arguments and counterarguments to be sure I’m
not reaching for ideas.

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, her proposal is very clear and presented with her main points of emphasis are also a few
counter argument points that will challenge her main topic.

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.

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.
Yes, both are hearty with lots of information.

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.
Yes, each annotation states the main points of emphasis of the articles as well as the sources of
where that information is being derived from.
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, her first source explains how people of varying diets can be affected differently that others.

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.
It seems her entire proposal and annotations are in her own words with no copied phrases.

7. What did you find most interesting or impressive about this draft?
I found that the correlation between eating healthier and more specifically vegan based diets
could change the course of human existence and the longevity of the world to be a very intriguing
point of emphasis.

8. How might the proposal be improved or strengthened?

This is present, but maybe a few more points of the nutritional values one may lack with
obtaining more of a vegan based diet.

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?
Possibly one source that supports her counterargument, the effects of vegan based diets with the
absence of meat. You’re following the intended direction perfectly.