Construct an annotated bibliography of potential sources for your argument essay. You should have an introduction explaining what you plan to do with the material, at least a paragraph in length and no longer than one page double-spaced. There should be at least eight potential sources, all of them related to your topic.
An annotated bibliography is a list of citations for research sources. Each citation is followed by an annotation, a brief descriptive and evaluative paragraph about the source. The purpose of the annotation is to inform the reader of the relevance, accuracy, and quality of the sources cited.
Some things your annotation should include:
1. Evaluation of the source for relevance to your topic,
2. Evaluation of the source for possible bias,
3. If possible, an evaluation the authority, background, and education of the author(s),
4. Commentary on the intended audience. For whom was it written (general public/any reader,
subject specialists, college students)? What skill level or education level must the reader have?
5. Comparison or contrast between this work and another you have cited.
Example of a Citation and Annotation, from the University of Missouri Libraries website:
London, Herbert. “Five Myths of the Television Age.” Television Quarterly 10.1 (1982): 81-89. Academic Search Premiere. Web. 10 Oct. 2010.
Herbert London, the Dean of Journalism at New York University and author of several books and articles, explains how television contradicts five commonly believed ideas. He uses specific examples of events seen on television, such as the assassination of John Kennedy, to illustrate his points. His examples have been selected to contradict such truisms as: “seeing is believing”; “a picture is worth a thousand words”; and “satisfaction is its own reward.” London uses logical arguments to support his ideas which are his personal opinion. He doesn’t refer to any previous works on the topic; however, for a different point of view, one should refer to Joseph Patterson’s, “Television is Truth” (The Journal of Television 45 (6) November/December 1995: 120-135). London’s style and vocabulary would make the article of interest to any reader. The article clearly illustrates London’s points, but does not explore their implications, leaving the reader with many unanswered questions.
