Valerie Parris-Reid
American Military University
Annotated bibliography
References
Metcalf, T., & Metcalf, G. (2008). Diabetes. Detroit: Thomson/Gale. Comment by Dr. M.: Please correct your APA.
Additionally, this book is ten years old. Please find newer information in journal articles in the library. This is too old. 5 years or younger please.
Summary
This source analyzes the abnormal metabolism of carbohydrates in people suffering from diabetes. This abnormal metabolism of carbohydrates leads to a situation where an individual has an abnormal amount of glucose in the blood. This abnormal amount of glucose can also be detected in the urine of the affected individual.
Assessment
This source is a book and is found in the university library. It is peer reviewed. This means that the information it contains has been scrutinized and verified by other experts in the field. It is, therefore, a very reliable source.
Critique
This source is very relevant to my research as a whole. First of all it gives information on the working dynamics of diabetes. This is with reference to the blood and urine of the affected individual. A weakness of this source is the lack of visual aids. However, it has no clear biases.
Sheen, B. (2013). Diabetes (4th ed.). Farmington Hills, MI: Lucent Books Comment by Dr. M.: This is better than the previous book…but get away from books. Use journal articles instead. Get the most current, most up-to-date info.
Summary
This source looks at type 2 diabetes. This is a form of diabetes in which the body produces insulin. However, this insulin is not used by the body as is appropriate. The result of this is an imbalance in the blood sugar levels.
Assessment
This source is found in the city library. It is in the pure sciences section. It is peer reviewed which means that it is a valid source of information on the subject. It is very strong when it comes to analysis of type 2 diabetes.
Critique
A major bias of this source is that it ignores type 1 diabetes and only looks at type 2. It also has no visual aids. This makes it very difficult to picture what the author is trying to convey as readers have to rely on their imaginations and understanding of the subject.
Stewart, G. B. (2014). Diabetes. San Diego, CA: Kidhaven Press. Comment by Dr. M.: ONE book is plenty. Use better sources please.
Summary
This source covers type 1 diabetes. This is a condition in which the body of the affected individual fails to make insulin. The absence of this hormone means that there is no catalyst to help with the breaking down of glucose.
Assessment
This source is found in the university library. It is also peer reviewed which means that the information it contains is highly factual. The author is also a renowned scholar of the condition.
Critique
This source is very useful as it covers type 1 diabetes comprehensively. It also has visual aids to help with the explanations. However, it is slightly biased as it only covers one type of diabetes. ![]()
Bibliography,
Source
Selection, and
Credibility
25 - 21 points 20 - 16 points 15 - 11 points < 10 points
(25 points)
All citations are
correctly cited
following a
standard
bibliographic
(APA) format.
All citations are
cited following a
standard
bibliographic
(APA) format with
no more than two
errors.
Citations follow a
standard
bibliographic
(APA) format with
more than two
citation errors.
Citations follow
no discernible
bibliographic
format or pattern
of frequent
citation errors.
Three
source
citations.
Written in
standardized
(e.g. APA)
format.
References and
information is
current and
scientifically
credible.
References and
information is
mostly current
and scientifically
credible.
Some references
and information
may be outdated
and scientifically
unreliable.
References and
information may
be outdated and
scientifically
unreliable.
Sources are
from journals,
books, websites
and based on
published
scientific work
either directly
or indirectly.
Sources
such as any
“Wiki” not
permitted.
Blog entries not
permitted
Summary20 - 16 points 15-10 points 10 - 6 points < 5 points
(20 points)
Clear and concise Summary of the Stated topic Summary
Minimum
criteria:
summary of the
author’s main
point
but summarymisses major
source including
the
and supporting
doesn’t clearly
support author’s
main point and
idea completely
and/or only
includes point
Topic
sentence
stating main
topic or
argument of
the article,
research
paper, or book.
author’s main
conclusions but a
little too brief to
be clear.
conclusions.
of interest for
students.
State type
of paper, i.e.
original
research or
review of topic.
points that
State main
conclusion or
finding.
support his/her
conclusions.
Evaluation20 - 16 points 15-10 points 10 - 6 points < 5 points
(20 points)
1. Described the
Missed one point
from excellent
column or
provided no “real
evidence” (i.e.
This author seems
to have authority
because he
knows his stuff.)
Missed two points
Missed three
points from
excellent
format/type of
the
from excellent
column or
provided
Minimum
criteria:
source.1. Format/column no evidence.
type of source,
or provided no
evidence for:
State
format/type of
source, e.g.
peer reviewed
journal paper,
website article,
book, etc.
2. Evaluated Or the source is a
Provide
evidence for
author’s
authority.
and provided
evidence
2. Author’s 1. Format/
not very reliable
source
Source
sponsor or
publisher.
for author’sCredentials.type of source,
with no
justification.
Accuracy
and bias.
authority.
3. Source 2. Author’s
3. Evaluated
source
evaluationcredentials,
(website’s
sponsoring
organization,
journal, or book
publisher).4. Other 3. Source
evaluation criteria Evaluation.
4. Discussed
other
as necessary.
necessary
evaluation criteria
if an issue
(audience,
objectivity,
4. Other
currency,
accuracy,
evaluation criteria
relevance, etc)as necessary.
Critique25 - 21 points 20-16 points15-11 points< 10 points
(25 points)
1. Demonstrates
careful reading
and clear
understanding of
source content
and quality.
1. Demonstrates
careful reading
and clear
understanding of
source content
and quality.
1. Described
1. Careful reading
and
understanding not
demonstrated.
Annotation should
be clear and
concise and
contain
approximately 4-6
well written
sentences.
why this source is
relevant to the
paper.
2. Described why 2. Described why 2. Lacks clarity
Minimum
criteria:
this source isthis source is
2. Described how
it will be used but
connection is too
relevant to
research
relevant to
research
weak/does not
make sense.
Describes
why source is
relevant.
paper.paper.
Identifies
strengths and
weakness of
source.
3. Doesn’t identify
strengths or
shortcomings.
Compares
with other
sources used
for this
assignment.
3. Identifies
strengths and
weaknesses/short
comings of
sources.
3. Identifies
strengths and
weaknesses/short
comings of
sources.
Personal
comment(s) on
source
4. Lacks Clarity
4. Compare with
other sources
used.
5. Personal
comment(s)
about source
Writing: Spelling,
Grammar,
Punctuation
10 points 9 - 8 points 7 - 6 points < 5 points
(10 points)
Writing errors are
not present.
Some
grammar/spelling
errors but they do
not take away
from abstract
content and
clarity.
Spelling,
punctuation, and
grammar errors
impair readability/
comprehension.
Numerous writing
errors are
present. Spelling,
punctuation, and
grammar errors
severely impair
readability/
comprehension.
First person is
used.
POINTS EARNED95
20
20
20
25
10
Points
Earned
Evaluation
Criteria
Excellent GoodFairPoor
pkna_reiva
diabetes_1.docx
0
