FOLLOW THYE FEEDBACK AND IMPROVE IT
Feedback from the short proposal
This is overall a very strong proposal that indicates both a strong engagement with the theme/initial resources as well as attention to detail (including the instructions). I have left some more specific comments in-text, especially around citation/reference styles, but also some ways you might frame content related to the physical and then social impacts of climate change.
Put references in alphabetical order
Feedback from the outline
From what I can tell, you’ve done a good amount of initial research and have a strong research voice. The outline approach you’ve taken might not be quite right for the type of research paper this is (social science, secondary sources = no experimental design; also, this is – at present – a one-off paper, so not sure how ‘long-term research’ applies!), but it has definitely gotten you to think through the paper’s framing, which is a great first step. See in-text comments for more feedback. Also, make sure you are clear how you will deploy references in support of your argument!
this seems a bit ambitious in its given form, but I do think that synthesis is key, and bringing different realms of impact into conversation a contribution
make sure to provide a strong title!
On the introduction part at the end make sure everything up to here is a very solid intro paragraph! i’m a little less sure about the last sentence, in position because i wonder to what degree solutions/mitigation can come from the Arctic…
Make sure you set up what the sections you will have as your “findings” ahead of time (i.e., this paper will examine the biophysical, ecological, and socio-cultural impacts of climate change in the Arctic, theorizing that these seemingly distinct areas of impact should be examined in tandem…”)
why focus just on the Inuit? Are you focusing on the US or North American Arctic?
all references should be cited in-text
don’t use the google books link – just give us the full book citation
Feedback form the Annotated Biblio.
The main issue that I have with this submission is that none of the references seem to be quite right, in terms of their information, and the references do not seem to align with the annotations below them. I am very confused by this annotated bibliography, and while I think you are gaining potential information that is relevant to what you propose to do, this document does not demonstrate a clear understanding of how to cite or assess the utiity of disparate literature.
references should be included in the annotated bibliography in alphabetical order
I’m not sure why you have footnotes within citations
who is Fowler in this context??