make an annotated works cited with any scholarly article

by

An Annotated Works Cited is a list of citations for various books, articles, and other sources on a topic. The Annotated Works Cited looks like a Works Cited page but includes an annotation after each source cited. An annotation is a short summary and/or critical evaluation of a source. You may quote in your annotations.

  • Each annotation should be one paragraph, between three to six sentences long.
  • Start with the same format as a regular Works Cited list.
  • All lines should be double-spaced. Do not add an extra line between the citations
  • Try to be objective, and give explanations if you state any opinions.
  • Use the third person (e.g., he, she, the author) instead of the first person (e.g., I, my, me)
  1. Cite the source using MLA style.
  2. Describe the main ideas, arguments, themes, theses, or methodology, and identify the intended audience.
  3. Explain the author’s expertise, point of view, and any bias he/she may have.
  4. Compare to other sources on the same topic that you have also cited to show similarities and differences.
  5. Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each source.
  6. Identify the observations or conclusions of the author.

EXAMPLE: Annotated Works Cited

London, Herbert. “Five Myths of the Television Age.” Television Quarterly, vol. 10, no. 1, Mar. 1982, pp. 81-69. Herbert London, the Dean of Journalism at

New York University and author of several books and articles, explains how television contradicts five commonly believed ideas. He uses specific

examples of events seen on television, such as the assassination of John Kennedy, to illustrate his points. His examples have been selected to

contradict such truisms as: “seeing is believing”; “a picture is worth a thousand words”; and “satisfaction is its own reward.” London uses logical

arguments to support his ideas which are his personal opinion. He does not refer to any previous works on the topic. London’s style and vocabulary

would make the article of interest to any reader. The article clearly illustrates London’s points, but does not explore their implications leaving the reader

with many unanswered questions.