RC 1000

Peer Review Worksheet: Annotated Bibliography

Writer:_____Levi Thompson__________________________ Reviewer:_____Matthew Van Vliet

For the writer:

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

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

_______________________________________________________________________
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, there is an introduction in the beginning paragraph, there is a thesis statement, “I wish to be able to
sit and educate myself enough on the topic to plainly state that either veganism is something everyone
should look towards, or if it’s an option to those only against the way meat is produced.” There aren’t
really any research questions aside from the initial “is meat beneficial to the body?”

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, only lacking the annotations.

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.

The link coming from WebMD may not be the most reliable source, but the U.S. National Laboratory link
is definitely a credible source.

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.

N/A.
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, “Might A Vegan Diet Be Healthy, or Healthier?” believes in the benefits of a vegan diet over one
including meat.

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.

None of the research proposal appears to be problematic.

7. What did you find most interesting or impressive about this draft?

This proposal narrows in on exactly what the writer would like to study, being very clear.

8. How might the proposal be improved or strengthened?

I don’t quite see where most of the sources are utilised within the paper.

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?

It could be more useful to flesh out your point of view within your thesis, maybe including that you
believe meat to be beneficial to one’s diet, so the reader has a clear idea of what you’re arguing.