Chris Murphy’s annotated bibliography focuses on the issue of sustainability. His research focuses in more specifically on the use of electric vehicles instead of combustion engines for public transportation and waste removal. In the problem statement Chris addresses the larger effect that these two types of vehicles already have on the environment as well as the population as a whole. He discusses how his discipline gives us the tools that we need to address this problem if only people were to make the effort.
I found that although the overall method with which Chris presented his problem came across quite differently than my own problem statement we ended up drawing the same conclusion on how our discipline can help and why these problems have not already been addressed. In my problem statement I focused much more on why the problem I was researching was important to me rather than focusing on the people that it would help. I did this because the problem that I presented focuses more on personal preference and a tendency to avoid unnecessary waste while I know that many people would disagree with my desire to preserve older buildings for aesthetic reasons as well as economic reasons. Chris’s problem is one that I think everyone can agree is something we should work to fix.
Looking at his XML formatted document the biggest difference that we had was our use of different citation styles. He also kept quotation marks in the code itself while also calling it out as a quote which lead to double quotation marks in all of his formatted annotations. We both tended to only use one type for background, summary, and relevance for each source. However Chris seemed to only use general summary every time and application relevance every time.
Overall, I do not think the Chris and I’s annotated bibliographies were all too different in format. I did enjoy the consistency in his annotation format but I do not feel like that would have worked as well considering the sources that I chose to use and for the problem that I was addressing. The one thing that I would take from reviewing Chris’s project was the straightforwardness of his problem statement. I like its simplicity and the fact that it is to the point without adding extraneous information that is unnecessary in a review of this format.
