I found it very interesting how sources that want to send the same sort of message can send it in very different ways. For example, a news paper article and a scholarly source can both have a thesis about social tension around immigrants. However, a scholarly article will have much more specific jargon and will use much more complex words and have much more information and data within it compared to the news article. The ability to analyze all of my sources and the sources of my sources was something that I never really focused on.

However, in the annotated bibliography, I feel like I did a good job analyzing the sources and identifying whether not not they were scholarly articles along with whether or not they were primary or secondary sources. What was new to me was to read up and do research about the authors of my sources and I believe this was my weak point in this annotated bibliography. I did the research on my authors but never elaborated enough as to why they would or would not have possible biases regarding my topic and I plan to improve on this as I continue to do more works like this.