Boilerplate Comments for Revising and Editing

the "Annotated Bibliography of Cell Phone Articles"

Engineers in hard hats

Boilerplate:

  1. Steel in the form of flat plates used in making steam boilers
  2. A copy made with the intention of making other copies from it
  3. In information technology, a boilerplate is a unit of writing that can be reused over and over without change.

Read the grading rubric comments and points in BBd Gradebook to understand how your work was assessed, please.

Documenting

1. Displaying Titles: Use italics for titles of major works and quotation marks around titles of minor works, both in the Works Cited section and in the text itself.

2. Capitalizing Titles: The MLA convention for titles is to capitalize the first letter of each significant work; it does not matter how the title displays in the original publication. (Re:  ScienceDaily article title)

3. Formatting: (a) Works cited entries are in hanging indent format and are listed alphabetically. (b) All internal punctuation and spacing must follow the correct model in the PU OWL. (c) Don’t be sloppy about the close details of punctuating and capitalizing because that undercuts the credibility of your writing, making your readers wonder whether your research and your critical thinking aren’t also sloppy. Be professional.

4. Originality and Plagiarism: View your Safe Assign originality report and make revisions accordingly. The originality reports show me that many of the submissions are 70%-80% plagiarized! This means you are not following the instructions about how to paraphrase and/or that you are not using Speechnotes to paraphrase from your sources, as was demonstrated in class. I took no points off for this problem ONLY since it is the first formal academic assignment, so I see this as a teaching moment and won’t penalize the grades. However, as you revise the annotated bibliography for inclusion in the Webfolio of Final Revisions and Edits, pay heed to the Safe Assign report and rework the sections that are marked as plagiarism (unless that includes the works cited entries).

Editing

1. Use the assistive editing technologies: MS Word’s grammar-check and spell-check, Grammarly, and PaperRater for advice on editing and style. Use the MS Word “Speak” function to listen for errors.  

2. Take pride in your work: Many of the submissions did not even edit the draft of the article we did together in class, which I dictated into Speechnotes and provided to everyone as a model of how to do the process. Take pride in your work, folks: don’t cut corners and don’t be sloppy, please.  Additionally, USE the assistive technologies, including MS Word’s “Speak” function. Please send me your best work so that I can award you the best marks. 

Content

1. Credibility of the sources: What is connoted by terms such as “the author claims,” “he believes,” “she thinks,” “he  contends that”? These articles are research-based and supported with researched evidence rather than speculation or opinion—even Freed’s. Words such as those listed cast doubt on the veracity of the authors and the viability of the research they cite. While it is good to be skeptical, or at least cautious about, Internet sources, we can't disregard credible evidence just because the conclusions do not fit with our pre-conceived notions or reinforce our personal preferences. Together we assessed the sources and the writers in class. All are credible sources composed by reliable, authoritative writers, and they are driven by research, which the articles themselves link to.We need to allow ourselves to be convinced by solid evidence, and as writers we need to use solid evidence to both form our opinions and to stand as support for them. In other words, our opinions need to be driven by the evidence in order for them to have credibility

2. Accuracy: The summaries should accurately reflect what the articles say, without adding your own opinions about the content.