# data[].attributes.body
1. Read through your sample annotated bibliography with your group.
2. Evaluate your sample using the rubric; you might consider splitting the work amongst yourselves (e.g. the intro paragraph, each source annotation, the citations/formatting)
3. After analyzing & discussing with your group members, give your sample a "grade" based on the rubric. (Yes, there's a bit of math involved.)
4. Add thorough notes in your section of this Padlet - what grade did you give? Why? What strengths/weaknesses did you see in your sample? Did your group disagree at all about the grade you gave, and if so, why?

# data[].attributes.body
The introduction lacked needed context and had redundancy in its thesis. 7/10 in the topic description category.

The sources were of decent credibility and related to the topic. 8/10.

The author addresses the biases in both sources, 8/10.

Lacked explanation of the sources themselves, instead explained relation to argument, 6/10.

All sources used were very relevant to argument, 10/10.

Included 2 sources, one peer-reviewed source, lacked parts of proper MLA format, 8/10.

Total 47/60, or 78.3%

# data[].attributes.body
The introduction paragraph explained the topic and the writer's stance well enough, however it could have been structured better. Additionally, the introduction paragraph should go above the first citation. (6/10)

# data[].attributes.body
Both sources were reliable, made from reputable publishers, despite being biased. (8/10)

# data[].attributes.body
Our group did not have much disagreement in the grading process, we were able to discuss and come to a conclusion for each portion of the grading process.

# data[].attributes.body
strengths:
-passionate about topic
-one good reliable source

weaknesses:
-one not so reliable source
-kind of vague
-needs more description/context

# data[].attributes.headline
Identification & Description of Authority of Sources

# data[].attributes.subject
Identification & Description of Authority of Sources

# data[].attributes.body
The writer properly explained that the sources may be biased, but justified their usage. (6/10).

# data[].attributes.body
The ideas were summarized, but the summaries could have gone more in-depth. (6/10).

# data[].attributes.body
Topic description- 10
-Clear and understandable introduction to the topic, and gave background information
Quality of sources- 8
-One source was good and both were clearly related to the topic but one source was a website lacking a publication date, or author
Identification of authority of sources- 10
-Author addressed possible bias, while giving a brief description
Quality and clarity- 8
Clearly summarized, but feels like it is missing some ideas
Discussion of relevance- 10
All notes lined up with the topic
Quantity of citations- 8
few errors, but not perfect

# data[].attributes.headline
Discussion of Relevant Sources to Paper or Project

# data[].attributes.subject
Discussion of Relevant Sources to Paper or Project

# data[].attributes.body
The writer implied that the sources are relevant, rather than establish why they are relevant. (6/10).

# data[].attributes.body
No header

# data[].attributes.body
There are errors in the format of the citation (missing indents, not in MLA format). (4/10).

# data[].attributes.body
Sample three had a great starting point, because the intro had introduced the topic well and supported reasoning behind their claim. It was organized and easy to read. Moving forward the rest of the sample was unorganized and hard to follow. It was very repetitive and lack structure. Another downfall was giving the proper credit and authorization. Although they did have well structure citations and their overall format was good. We graded this paper a 32 out of 60

# data[].attributes.body
- different fonts used
- 13.5pt font size
- no header and page number
- missed indentation on annotation
- incomplete citation for online source

# data[].attributes.body
54/60

# data[].attributes.body
The topic is clearly stated however there is no indication of the reasoning behind the argument.

# data[].attributes.headline
Identification & description of authority of sources

# data[].attributes.subject
Identification & description of authority of sources

# data[].attributes.body
Gives good descriptions of the sources but doesn't explain why these sources are credible.
8/10