Annotated Biblio Authors: ​Samantha Castro, Kimberlee Hangse, Cherry Limthanakit, and

Ashley Mize

Peer Reviewer's Names:​ ​Norris Entena, Eric Palacios, Carys Houck Teal

Part 1: SLO Scores

SLO #1--Rhetorical Awareness (written for the right audience and purpose):

1-Below Basic 2-Developing 3-Proficient 4-Advanced

SLO #2--Ethical Research (correct citations; diverse, authoritative sources):

1-Below Basic 2-Developing 3-Proficient 4-Advanced

SLO #3--Persuasion (articles "fit" with this webpage's topic(s); clear

connections/distinctions among sources):

1-Below Basic 2-Developing 3-Proficient 4-Advanced

SLO #4--Organization (required annotation organization is present and complete; website

organized logically):

1-Below Basic 2-Developing 3-Proficient 4-Advanced

SLO #5--Language and Design (consistent language level/style and user-friendly, logical
web design):

1-Below Basic 2-Developing 3-Proficient 4-Advanced

SLO #6--Consistency in design, prose, and structure

1-Below Basic 2-Developing 3-Proficient 4-Advanced

Part 2: Successes and Challenges

Two Successes:

1. Good consistent aesthetic on the website including fonts, group logo, and purple/lavender
color scheme. The “Meet Our Team” page is a nice touch too.
2. The clustering of annotated bibliography sources in each is logical and effective. Good sources
were found to justify the points the bibliography is trying to make.

Two Challenges:

1. The team’s website was well organized, however the design was cramped. We would suggest
breaking up the text under “Our Purpose statement” from one large block, into several smaller
paragraphs. Consider adding more white space between all of the annotated bibliographies and
between the citation and summary of the source. This will add clarity for readers.

2. The annotations were mostly well written, however some failed to address an audience which
was one of the required fields according to Dr. Bruce. For example, look at the first couple of
entries on the page “Background of Racial Health Disparities.”

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------

Annotated Biblio Authors: ​Raymond Alarcon, Liz Patnode, Jesse Payton, and Kadisha Tautuaa

Peer Reviewer’s Names: ​Norris Entena, Eric Palacios, Carys Houck Teal

Part 1: SLO Scores

Consult the regular Annotated Biblio Rubric to see the full SLOs. Highlight, Bold, or
Color the scores you think are appropriate for this draft using the tool bar above.

SLO #1--Rhetorical Awareness (written for the right audience and purpose):

1-Below Basic 2-Developing 3-Proficient 4-Advanced

SLO #2--Ethical Research (correct citations; diverse, authoritative sources):

1-Below Basic 2-Developing 3-Proficient 4-Advanced

SLO #3--Persuasion (articles "fit" with this webpage's topic(s); clear

connections/distinctions among sources):

1-Below Basic 2-Developing 3-Proficient 4-Advanced

SLO #4--Organization (required annotation organization is present and complete; website

organized logically):
1-Below Basic 2-Developing 3-Proficient 4-Advanced

SLO #5--Language and Design (consistent language level/style and user-friendly, logical
web design):

1-Below Basic 2-Developing 3-Proficient 4-Advanced

SLO #6--Consistency in design, prose, and structure

1-Below Basic 2-Developing 3-Proficient 4-Advanced

Part 2: Successes and Challenges

To receive full credit, give detailed answers here and use the SLOs' language to guide your
choices. Either add a short example from the paper or say where you see the success or the
challenge (e.g., a page or abbreviated article name).

Two Successes:

1. Great logo that looks very professional. Homepage design is aesthetically pleasing as well,
including the photos.

2. The annotations provide concise and effective summaries of the source being referenced. The
last two articles under “Life as it Relates to the Reservation” had brief yet complete information
of the article and then relates it back to the grouping topic with the last sentence.

Two Challenges:

1. The citations of the annotations need review. The style of each is inconsistent.There is a
combination of APA and MLA formatting. One notable example is under the cluster
“Intersectional Systemic Neglect of Native Communities” with the 3rd source. The author names
should be last name, first name initial letter., middle name initial letter.,. This is a link to some
Purdue OWL APA examples we used on our citations!
https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/apa_style/apa_formatting_and_style_guide/ref
erence_list_author_authors.html

It was super helpful! :)

2. Many of the annotations do not satisfy the four criteria that Dr. Bruce specified on her original
prompt. Take the time to review each annotation and make sure that they are corrected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
Annotated Biblio Authors: ​Alyssa Arace, Ariana Santana, Deysi Godoy, and Micah Daniels

Peer Reviewer's Names: ​Norris Entena, Eric Palacios, Carys Houck Teal

Part 1: SLO Scores

SLO #1--Rhetorical Awareness (written for the right audience and purpose):

1-Below Basic 2-Developing 3-Proficient 4-Advanced

SLO #2--Ethical Research (correct citations; diverse, authoritative sources):

1-Below Basic 2-Developing 3-Proficient 4-Advanced

SLO #3--Persuasion (articles "fit" with this webpage's topic(s); clear

connections/distinctions among sources):

1-Below Basic 2-Developing 3-Proficient 4-Advanced

SLO #4--Organization (required annotation organization is present and complete; website

organized logically):

1-Below Basic 2-Developing 3-Proficient 4-Advanced

SLO #5--Language and Design (consistent language level/style and user-friendly, logical
web design):

1-Below Basic 2-Developing 3-Proficient 4-Advanced

SLO #6--Consistency in design, prose, and structure

1-Below Basic 2-Developing 3-Proficient 4-Advanced

Part 2: Successes and Challenges

Two Successes:

1. Beautiful and clear website design. The headers are clear and distinctive, with excellent color
coordination. We love the fun buttons at the bottom of each page that take you to the next page
of clusters! :)

2. Well-written introduction and cluster summaries, they made it easy for a reader to understand
what to expect from each section.

Two Challenges:

1. Make sure to review Dr. Bruce’s four criteria from the syllabus. Each annotation must address
each point she requested. For example, under “Socioeconomic Factors” many of the articles do
not compare and contrast with other articles.

2. Make sure citations are done in a consistent style. For example, the first annotations under the
headings “Pre-Existing Conditions” and “Socioeconomic factors” have parenthesis around the
year yet other citations do not follow that same style.