evanbauman11-zesxi

E-Portfolio

Revised Final Draft – Annotated Bibliography

Evan Bauman

ENC 2135
Draft 2 Annotated Bibliography

Human Rights Watch. “Q&A: Migrant Worker Abuses in Qatar and FIFA World Cup 2022.” Human Rights Watch, 18 Dec. 2021, www.hrw.org/news/2021/12/18/qa-migrant-worker-abuses-in-qatar-and-fifa-world-cup-2022.

Summary
Human Rights Watch explains that although Qatar introduced labor reforms before the 2022 FIFA World Cup, migrant workers continue to face serious abuses. These include unpaid wages, restricted movement, unsafe working conditions, and limited accountability due to weak enforcement of laws. The source aims to highlight ongoing human rights violations and pressure both the Qatari government and FIFA to take meaningful action. It argues that reforms alone are not effective without proper enforcement. Overall, the source calls for stronger responsibility and protection for workers.

Evaluation
This source is highly credible because it is based on detailed research, firsthand accounts, and evidence from a well respected human rights organization. It is useful for understanding the larger system behind migrant worker abuse and FIFA’s role in addressing it. Compared to The Ugly Side of the Beautiful Game, which focuses on specific job sites, this source provides a broader policy level perspective. The two sources work well together by offering different angles on the same issue. Its strong evidence and independent research increase its reliability.

Amnesty International. The Ugly Side of the Beautiful Game: Exploitation of Migrant Workers on a Qatar 2022 World Cup Site. https://www.amnesty.org/ar/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/MDE2235482016ENGLISH.pdf

Summary
Amnesty International reports that migrant workers on World Cup construction sites in Qatar experienced severe exploitation. These abuses include unpaid or delayed wages, passport confiscation, unsafe working conditions, and forms of forced labor. Many workers were trapped due to recruitment debt and employer control, making it difficult to leave their situations. The report calls on FIFA and Qatari authorities to enforce stronger protections. Its purpose is to expose these conditions and push for accountability and reform.

Evaluation
This source is credible because Amnesty International is known for detailed investigations and direct documentation of human rights abuses. It is especially useful because it provides specific examples from actual worksites, showing the human impact of the issue. Compared to the Human Rights Watch source, this report focuses more on individual experiences rather than policy. Together, the sources complement each other by combining real life examples with broader analysis. The use of interviews and documented evidence strengthens its credibility.

TUC. “I Have Nothing Workers Rights and the Qatar 2022 World Cup.” TUC, 18 Nov. 2022, www.tuc.org.uk/research-analysis/reports/i-have-nothing-qatar-2022-world-cup.

Summary
The TUC report explains that even after labor reforms, many migrant workers in Qatar still face exploitation. Common issues include unpaid wages, high recruitment fees, and employer control similar to the kafala system. Weak enforcement and limited access to justice leave workers vulnerable and often in debt. The report recommends stronger protections, better representation, and more accountability from FIFA. Its purpose is to highlight ongoing problems and push for practical improvements.

Evaluation
This source is credible because it comes from a respected organization focused on workers rights. It provides useful insight into the financial and labor conditions faced by migrant workers. Compared to the other sources, it focuses more on economic impacts such as debt and wage theft. This adds another layer of understanding to the issue by showing how exploitation affects workers financially. Its research and analysis support its reliability and usefulness.

Revision Explanation

In my revision, I focused on making my writing more detailed and less repetitive. In my first draft, I often repeated the same ideas without adding new information, so I worked on making each sentence contribute something different. I also improved clarity by simplifying sentence structure and making my points easier to follow. Another change I made was strengthening the connection between ideas, especially when comparing sources, so the writing flows better. Overall, these changes made my annotated bibliography clearer, more organized, and effective.

Reflective Statement

To be quite frank, when I first started this semester, in all honesty, I did not quite understand what revision meant. To myself, it was just fixing grammar mistakes, maybe changing a few words, and calling it done. I thought once a draft was finished. But working through this course, especially while revising my major project about migrant worker abuses in Qatar for the 2022 FIFA World Cup, completely changed that mindset. It taught me that revision is more about rethinking your whole paper than getting rid of small errors. One of the biggest concepts that really stayed with me was rhetorical awareness. Before this class, I considered the audience only in terms of my teacher reading this. I wrote what I set out to say without regard for how it might sound, or whether it would be coherent to another. Writing was about communication, when peer reviews and feedback helped me make some sense of that. In my final draft, though you can read that I was more intentional with what part I tried to address, i.e., explain the issue of migrant worker exploitation more clearly and better connect my sources as well, and organize my points in a way that actually leads into my ideas. It wasn’t merely that data needed to be in there; it was that my argument needed to be intelligible to the reader. One of the other things I improved upon a lot was to use actual evidence and take an objective look at it. In my annotated bibliography, I worked with sources like Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and the TUC, which all explained the plight of migrant workers in Qatar. Initially, I was mostly summarizing what they said. I hadn’t gone particularly far-diving or communicated why the information was important. My revision task was to make the words more detailed and analytical. Instead of rote and copying what the sources said, I began to explain what they meant and how that related to what the sources said, and connecting them to each other. That made my writing better because it showed that I was knowledgeable, rather than simply regurgitating information. When I reworked my project, the most significant difference was in the details. My first draft was overly superficial and, with a lot of my explanations, too bare-bones. I revisited my summaries and evaluations to be more extensive and specific. Another very important thing that my teacher pointed out was that I was repetitive. I didn’t even understand my own redundancy until I got feedback. So in revising I just kept on rewriting ideas combining things which I was already saying all the same but I try to weave ideas in a similar place into my work while revising to make sure I am adding another sentence, I want to get from there so not only was it a part of my writing was not repeating the same thing, at least it was much more interesting to me. I also restructured the rhythm of the writing better so that I could read as little clunky and awkward as possible. All told those changes were so necessary in making my 2nd draft much cleaner and more focused on what I eventually wrote. I did not choose a selection of all artifacts I did for my e Portfolio at every turn; instead they highlight how I improved by the end, not just what my final outcome looked like. I incorporated class activities where we could get peer help, for free writes, we did in our practice. I selected these because they are not just the end result but the process through which I write. In class activities demonstrate how feedback from others showed that there were problems with my own writing that I hadn’t noticed myself. The free writes show that I organized my ideas and started working on each before creating complete assignments. Each artifact says something about me as a writer different from the others. These free writes prove that I was still learning how to articulate and organize my ideas clearly. They’re not perfect, but they are effort and proof. The in class things that I did showed that I learned to utilise feedback on my works. When I had no idea what needed to change at first at all, gradually I came to recognize problems and solve them. Combined, these artifacts demonstrate that my writing didn’t just become better as I’d done so, it became better as I practiced, got feedback and practically put it to use. This was the most difficult part of that process for me- not repeating yourself. I hadn’t known enough how much time I kept going through identical ideas in various versions of them. It was maddening because my thought was I was adding more when in fact, I was saying the same thing one time all over again. When my teacher got feedback, I began noticing whether each sentence added something new. I also had to stop writing in multiple sentences and start merging my ideas. This was useful to make the writing less long and repetitive. Another important thing I took away this semester is how useful feedback is. I was not quite sure how to use feedback effectively initially. But in peer reviews and teacher comments I came to learn that feedback allows you to look at your writing from a different place you were in. Well I’m talking about a lot of people, and it taught me to understand the problems such as repetition, to be more detail-oriented. Once I began to actually work off of that feedback my writing got much better. I look at this and feel like I can write a lot better now than I could start the semester. How I organize, use evidence & revise my work. I am much more conscious of all that. Yes, I know I still have a lot to work on but I do feel more confident in my writing overall. Everything I did was great with it but I learnt extra details not to repeat myself and revision process is very extensive because I want to practice writing like that in my next classes and every other writing situation. I also lost the expectation that my first draft would be perfect. It was a mindset change for me. Now I understand writing to be a process that it is OK to be rough first and then better in time. Frankly, that made writing feel less daunting. Overall, this course pushed me a lot as a writer. I went from just not knowing the process of revision to working and applying it for the writing to improve on it. Everything is great on my e Portfolio, which reflects the evolution from the early draft, which was lacking in detail and repeated ideas, and was simply the opposite to later output that is more developed and clearer. More than anything else I learned that good writing requires effort in time and a willingness to revise and to make real changes.

My 2 Artifacts

For my e-Portfolio, I included two artifacts of my own design that reflect my growth as a writer, which are free writing and in-class activities. I chose the free write because it shows how I practiced developing my ideas without worrying about being perfect. It helped me get more comfortable putting my thoughts on paper and organizing them before turning them into full assignments. I also included in-class activities because they show how I worked with peers and used feedback to improve my writing. These activities reflect my growth in revision, especially in learning how to avoid repetition and add more detail. Together, these artifacts show how my writing process developed over time and how I became more confident and effective as a writer.