Abra Logar

Library Science 102

05.20.05

 

Peer Review Commentary

 

Research Journal

            The topic and focus are clearly identified. The questions raised are pertinent and relevant to the topic, without being either overly elaborate, or vague and simplified. I feel that all the questions are valid for the topic, and in answering them, the author will in all likelihood have a good paper.

            The terms listed seemed relevant, if perhaps too few in number – however, the author has stated that eterms such as,f so perhaps more terms were used than are listed. The information on term used is sparse; perhaps because the objective was accomplished without using any others? However, perhaps a more thorough listing would be in order if a proper determination of the efficacy of the terms is to be made.

            The search for organizations is not dealt with in the journal. This strikes me as odd, because the authorfs topic seems to be intimately connected to the inner workings of two major organizations, which names I cannot accurately recall, not being a baseball fan.

            As to the various resources, the authorfs experience strikes me as fairly typical; ease of search for those things and methods that he is familiar with, and some difficulty with those that he is not. Were I in a similar position, my first step would have been (and usually is) to ask someone with greater authority on the subject for help and recommendations; he seems to have neglected a resource that sadly, most people neglect: other people.

 

Annotated Bibliography

Source 1 (magazine article):

a) No missing elements.

b) 2 improper elements – Title not in italics, unnecessary to write out gPg.h 

c) No miss-ordered elements.

d) No errors in punctuation.

e) No typos/misspellings.

f) The source is appropriate to the topic.

g) The abstract only addresses a summary, the usefulness, and the authority of the author with regard to the terms listed; however, I do feel that it is an adequate annotation for the article at hand, because it provides all the information really necessary for a magazine article. Granted, a great deal of information is gained by inference, and not directly, but it is effective nonetheless.

 

Source 2 (book):

a) No missing elements.

b) 1 improper element – Title not in italics. 

c) No miss-ordered elements.

d) No errors in punctuation.

e) No typos/misspellings.

f) The source is appropriate to the topic.

g) Once again the abstract provides only the same three elements listed above; however in this case, I feel that more would really be necessary, particularly the place in the literature, and the bias of the author, if any can be determined.

 

Source 3 (reference item):

a) Name of specific article. However, I offer the caveat that especific articlef might not in this case be relevant; I get the impression that the author intends to utilize the book as a whole, not mere sections of it.

b) No improper elements.

c) No miss-ordered elements.

d) No errors in punctuation.

e) No typos/misspellings.

f) The source is appropriate to the topic.

g) In addition to the elements addressed in the annotations above, this annotation also briefly touches on the scope of the work: it is a national statistics reference for certain specific things. However, the author fails to address the authority of the author/editor of the work, which in the case of a reference item – especially a statistical reference item – is a bad idea. The author also fails to address the sources for the reference; again, a necessary feature in this particular source.

 

Source 4 (website):

a) Perhaps half a missing element: the URL seems incomplete; indeed, when I attempted to go to the website, I failed. Additionally, no specific article title, but again, I present the caveat that the website as a whole may be in use, and not just one specific article.

b) No improper elements (that can be determined as-is).

c) No miss-ordered elements.

d) 1 punctuation error – missing a period after NBA.

e) No typos/misspellings.

f) The source is appropriate to the topic.

g) The author provides a summary of a kind, and makes much of the usefulness of the site with regards to his topic, however, he fails to address the very real concerns of Internet media: the authority, bias, and legitimacy of the website, the source of the data in the website, etc. While a little laxity can be allowed for things like magazine articles, for something like a website, the utmost care and scrutiny is required in order to assure legitimacy.