Jump to content

Talk:Annotated bibliography

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Length of annotation reference

[edit]

The reference for the "ideal" length of annotation seems to have been updated in 2009, and now does not contain any mention of ideal length. Perhaps a discussion of "ideal" lengths should reflect the bibliography's intended use, and reference/current new material. 130.102.158.15 (talk) 08:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stub to Article

[edit]

I updated this page with some basic information to qualify this as an article (though it still needs to be expanded upon). --Aquatics 02:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it would be nice if someone could provide a few examples! it would have helped me!

Why a separate article?

[edit]

Does anyone else feel, as I think I do, that "annotated bibliography," which is a short article, ought to be a section under the broader article, "bibliography", which is also pretty short? I won't move it until I hear some feedback on this. --Michael K. Smith 19:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the info at least and other comment/questions

[edit]

I don't care whether it's an article on its own or is a big section within the other article. But don't lose the info by over-terseness, please.

Also, I wonder if all bibliographies are alphabetical? Are they sometimes ordered in usefulness? Or grouped into sections by type of source (e.g. articles, purchased market research, consultants, etc.)? Just curious...TCO 21:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]