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)