Talk:Annotated bibliography
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Annotated bibliography article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
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)
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)
it would be nice if someone could provide a few examples! it would have helped me!
- I'll try to add in some examples. --Aquatics 02:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)