Annotated Bibliographies, why and how

Would it be cool, if instead of floundering through the literature on some subject, if you could instead read summaries and reviews, so you'd know which ones to start with? Right.

Welcome to annotated bibliographies! These are a great memory tool for yourself. I often find myself thinking "I wonder which book has that chapter about X", and being able to look it up without having to look through all the books is GREAT. I also use other people's annotated bibliographies to look for new useful sources, and see what I've missed.

Okay, so HOW do you do one? Well, there are lots of ways, and we'll discuss a few

First, how to organize your entries. There are lots of options, I'm starting with my three favorites.

1. By usefulness. So, the best source goes FIRST, and the least useful one is listed last. This is best if the subject is fairly limited.

2. Alphabetically or by date. This is how they are normally formatted in a scientific setting. For large bibliographies, or ones that span several subjects, this may be easiest.

3. Grouped by subject. This can be really great, but also can be difficult, for example, how do you handle overlaps? I end up with WAY too many "see section 3" bits, and it gets annoying to manage. HOWEVER, this is likely the most useful format for OTHER people to understand.

Now, how to actually DO an annotated bibliography. There are two parts.

1. The citation. I don't care anything about what format you use, though obviously I prefer the scientific ones over something like MLA. Any citation must include ALL of the following information (obviously, that is available, you can't cite a journal title if you are citing a book, for example).

A. Title of article/book/chapter (if chapters have separate authors, if only one author, then cite the book as ONE entry)

B. Date of publication.

C. Author or authors. ALL authors must be included.

D. Journal or Publisher name (if a book, then also publisher location)

(E). IF a journal article, then you MUST include the Volume and Number the article was published in.

(D). Optional for books, please include the ISBN if you have it, it makes interlibrary loan WAY easier.

http://classweb.gmu.edu/WAC/Biology/LitCited.htm

http://www.csus.edu/indiv/k/kusnickj/geology140/citation.html

The POINT of the citation is so other people can FIND your sources, so make it CLEAR

2. Annotation. This is the part where you tell people about the source. It should be a few sentences, about a short paragraph in length.

Here are some things you should (or could) include.

A. Summary (in a sentence or two) WHAT is this resource? A guide to catfish? An article describing an ancient firepit found in Mesopotamia? Experimental archeologists trying to cook on a firepit? You get the idea.

B. Review. Is this source good? Useful? Helpful?

C. Who would this be useful TO? Beginners? Advanced researchers? Left-handed knitters? Be specific please!

D. Why should I read or not read THIS source?

Here are some examples (btw, I make no judgement on if these are GOOD examples or not, they are just examples). Since each person decides how much to include in the annotation part, some are very brief, others much more extensive.

Many are JUST a summary, not a review, which is also fine. However, I prefer those that include both, since I find them more useful :)

http://www.cs.vassar.edu/~capriest/vikgarment.html

http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/eieol/norol-E.html

http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/articles/food_bibliography.html

http://celyn.drizzlehosting.com/mrwp/feast2.txt