I read Chris Murphy’s annotated bibliography that dealt with fossil fuels and sustainability. Specifically, he looks at fuel efficient vehicles that would reduce the amount of fossil fuels being used. In Chris’ problem statement, he gives a brief background of the issue of sustainability in Boston, and he follows that by saying that his discipline of mechanical engineering can help solve that problem. This structure is similar to my bibliography. However, he uses his discipline to look a very specific topic of combustion engines and electric motors, while I focus more on general skill sets used in my discipline.
Overall the markups look similar. Both of us use APA style for our citations. Both markups also contain a similar structure since everyone in our class wrote these using the same general schema. In Chris’ annotated bibliography, he uses the same structure of background type source, summary type general, and relevance type application except for one annotation (where he uses background type author). In my annotations, the types I use are more varied, and I have different combinations of them. Sometimes I have two types for an element, like a value statement and application for relevance. After comparing these bibliographies, I do not view my own differently. Neither piece is better than the other, they just have different content and styles.
