Peer Review-Annotated Bib

In class, when reviewing Kirliffa and Kassandra's annotated bibliographies I noticed similarities. Both of them did very well when explaining how their sources fit in with their research question. The quotes they included showed that connection as well. One thing I noticed from both of them is the citations; both left out the URL in the citation. I think this is because it can look incorrect and they are unsure of including it. I also noticed something I had in common with Kassandra. We both found sources which we later learned were not academic sources because of them were written by students and had a faculty sponsor. This can make it unreliable because it is not someone in the program. I recommended that she still use the source as one of her ten because it does have useful information still. Something else the girls both did well was in the third paragraph. Even though they could only compare the source to one other, they did a very good job on explaining how it was different and how they were similar.

The names of the two sources that I reviewed for Kirliffa were "Nova Southeastern to launch medical school next year" and "Medical Schools Struggle to Close Primary Care Gap". The two from Kassandra were "Chemical Exposure: The Ugly Side of Beauty Products" and "The Beauty Industry's Influence on Women in Society". I enjoyed reading through both Kirliffa and Kassandra's annotated bibliography's. It was interesting to hear about other people in our classes research question and the information they are finding.

Barrett, Julia R. “Chemical Exposures: The Ugly Side of Beauty Products.” Environmental Health Perspectives 113.1 (2005): A24. Print.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1253722/