Annotated Bibliography Peer Review

Today in class we peer-reviewed our own peers annotated bibliographies in class. I peer reviewed Ashantis and Kohlmers Annotations and two others peer-reviewed my annotated bibliography as well. Peer reviewing these annotated bibliographies allowed me to see what people in my writing group were researching, while also comparing my own annotated bibliography to theirs. For the most part, we all had similarities with having the same issue of not knowing how to properly space the citation itself and whatnot. My peers annotations both had detailed and descriptive annotations, however, while peer reviewing their annotations, some common mistakes were being seen. The date accessed for one was something that almost everyone forgot about, even including myself. Another thing I did notice was that they had not added the third or sometimes second paragraph needed to be a completed annotation. The third paragraph was the putting the sources in conversation with another, and the second paragraph should have been a more descriptive summary of the source and what else it has to bring. I made note of this on my feedback for their annotations. Another common mistake was the adding of quotes. They mainly paraphrased from their sources, instead of getting direct quotes. The first paragraph should mention the author and talk about the thesis of the source, and one of the best ways to do is that is by bringing in a quote from the source itself that explains what it's about. The names of the sources I had peer-reviewed include: Michael S. Hevel, Daniel A. Bureau, Mike Ayalon, Laura Brown, and Elizabeth Landau. This is a citation from one of my peers.

Brown, Laura. “The Benefits of Music Education.” PBS.org, 16 May 2013 http://www.pbs.org/p arents/education/music-arts/the-benefits-of-music-education/

(I had written in my feedback for them that the date accessed was needed)