Peer Review

Maurice: "Pharmacists’ knowledge and perceptions about herbal medicines: A case study of Jos and environs"

"Research: Perception of natural therapies following student-led education"

Calli: "Forward Paths Foundation"

"Transition from care: Status and outcomes of youth who age out of foster care"

My peers did a really good job at introducing their annotation and summarizing their thesis in the first paragraph. They went into detail about they would be able to integrate that source into their research paper and how it was relevant to what they are going to write about. They annotated their source really well, except for including the URL to the website within the annotation. Their first paragraph was really well written and I think they could tweak a few things but overall they did an amazing job at it. Their were little to no misspellings or grammatical errors. One thing they could improve on is their third paragraph, they never really made the other sources have a conversation , they mainly focused on how they could integrate it into their paper. Some of them also didn't really include quotes from the article, it was mainly a summary, not really an analysis of the source. They did not include how the author was credible, such as where they work, where they studied, etc. Overall though I believe they did a wonderful job at their annotated bibliographies so far, they just need to include quotes in the second paragraph and relate their sources to other sources in their third paragraph.

One of the citations: Thom Reilly. “Transition from Care; Status and Outcomes of Youth who age out of Foster care.” ResearchGate, November 2003, PubMed 07 January 2015http://www.thomreillypublications.com/docs/2003_Transition_From_Care.pdf Accessed 23 Jan. 2018