Peer Review--Annotated Bibliography

When reviewing the annotated bibliographies, the main issues I saw was that there wasn't a lot of incorporation of their own opinions/thoughts, or discussion on how they were going to use the information in their essay. While there was a lot of information in each annotation, it was hard to see where they stood on the topic. They did really well at establishing credibility in detail for each article by having a detailed background about every person that wrote the articles. They also summarized the articles well bringing in potential quotes that they would want to use in their essay. The sources that I peer reviewed were, “The Method Behind the Maddness: Katie Mitchell, Stanislavski, and The Classics”, "The Physical Training of the Actor in the 20th Century Drama Pedagogy”, ”Proto-cybernetics in the Stanislavski System of Acting: Past foundations, present analyses and future prospects”, and "Bodies Perform Inner Emotions: Stanislavski's Legacy."

Citation:

Cole, Emma. “The Method Behind the Maddness: Katie Mitchell, Stanislavski, and The

Classics.” Classical Receptions Journal, vol. 7, no. 3. 1 December 2015, Pages 400-421, https://doi.org/10.1093/crj/clu022. 21 January 2018.