Compose your annotations for each source in narrative paragraphs.
Compose your annotations for each source in narrative paragraphs. Each annotation will be at least 150-250 words and will include 9 items: Item 1: Author Background – What are the author’s credentials? Where does the author work? Does the author have other publications by credible publishers? Is the author affiliated with a respected organization? Item 2: Publishing Organization Background – Is the publisher a peer-reviewed, scholarly journal? Is the publisher an academic press? Is the publisher a website cited by respected sources? Is the site affiliated with a respected organization? Item 3:(ALREADY PROVIDED FOR YOU IN INSTRUCTIONS) Thesis / Argument -What does the author argue? Identify the thesis by completing this statement: The author argues that _____. This will help ensure that you capture the thesis. Item 4: Main Points – In 2-3 sentences, briefly note the main points. These will usually appear as supports for the thesis. Item 5: Evidence – What evidence does the author use? Is this evidence credible? Item 6: (ALREADY PROVIDED FOR YOU IN INSTRUCTIONS) Degree of Bias – Item 7: Accuracy – Use lateral reading as addressed in Step 2 to determine how accurate the source appears to be. You might not be able to determine this authoritatively if the topic is not well covered online. If that is the case, include a statement to that effect. Item 8: Comparison to Other Sources – History is a discussion, so what general trends do you see in your sources? For example, are there key areas of agreement or disagreement? Is one source more biased than the others? Or do you find generally balanced approaches in your sources? Do all of your sources share the same assumptions? Are there new approaches to old evidence? These questions should help you here. Item 9: Assessment of Suitability for Academic Research – State your assessment of quality clearly by choosing is or is not and completing this statement: Scholarly journal: Clotuche, Raphael “The Scheldt Valley Commercial Activity Zone: 350 Hectares of the Gallo-Roman Landscape.” No 40 (2009): 41-64 https://www.jstor.org/stable/27793232 Argument: “The author argues that large-scale excavations are important to gain a better understanding of the archeological features of a sight to establish a complete picture of the settlement. He or she uses the Scheldt Valley Commercial Activity Zone survey in the northern France as the foundation of his or her argument on the possibilities a huge archeological intervention offers. Such undertaking, being the first of its kind in the selected region, has become a crucial case for the future research. Overall, the conducted excavation has yielded substantial amount of data on the maintenance, structure, and development of the area in the Late Iron Age and Roman periods.” Bias: This scholarly article discusses large-scale excavation programs, their importance, and one example of such programs in particular: the Scheldt Valley Commercial Activity Zone project. The article seems well-balanced, although it does pay significant attention to the importance and advantages of large-scale projects. In my opinion, there are different ways to look at this tendency to discuss only the advantages of such excavation programs. It may be seen as bias because the article does not discuss the disadvantages and challenges of the project, such as large expenses and the use of other important resources. However, I think that the article presents enough arguments in favor of conducting large-scale projects. First, it provides information on the research findings in details, discussing the way the land was used and references to past and future research. Second, it shows how the new data helps to understand more about the areas that were not even present in the existing maps before this research project began. Therefore, it proves the usefulness of large-scale excavation programs in a balanced and consistent manner.