Peer Review

In the first annotation, my peer doesn't talk about the author. The reason for this was because the author was not listed on the article. I asked the teacher, and she said that if there is no author, then it is fine, that should just skip it. But still, there is a problem with the structure of the annotation. It is not separated into three paragraphs. This makes it a little hard to differentiate when my peer is trying to summarize the source, or give an intro to it, for example. Apart from that, I think the information given explains the information from the source well; it is easy to follow and flows smoothly. One thing that I did notice was that she did not include a quote from the source. She should definitely do that, so one can get more of an inside view of the source. Since there was the first annotation, she doesn't relate this source in conversation with the last one because there is no last source.

On the second annotation however, my peer did much better. This time she did separate the annotation into paragraphs, the first one for the intro and author, the second one for summary and quote, and the third one for relating this source with the last source. She also did not just drop a quote in the middle of the annotation, but she explained what it meant and why was it relevant.

Her sources are the Florida State University: College of Medicine and the Center on Budget and Policies Priorities.

Below is one of the citation that I revised for her:

Sherman, Arloc, and Tazra Mitchell. "Economic Security Programs Help Low-Income

Children Succeed Over Long-Term, Many Studies Find." Center on Budget and

Policies Priorities, CBPP, 17 July 2017. https://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/economic-security-programs-help-low-income-children-succeed-over. February 1, 2018.

This annotation used to be missing the date of access and the URL. But now it is corrected.