While I do link sources in-line on pages in the Pages section and pages in the Reviews section for quick access (i.e., when referring to a source, I will link to it directly or link to where to buy it if it isn’t a webpage), it can be very useful to have annotated bibliographies organized by subject. With this in mind, every page in this section lists sources corresponding to a page in the Pages section (e.g., /pages/stand-up-bikes) or a page in the Reviews section (e.g., /reviews/cyclete) and briefly comments on them in an objective fashion.

What I mean by this is that comments mostly summarize the content of the sources and discuss their individual utility rather than delving into anything involving opinion or analysis. While I do subjectively rate sources’ usefulness based on how well I think they address the topic at hand (and order them accordingly, with the most useful at the top of the page), I always attempt to justify my ratings as objectively as possible.

I also attempt to note biases or conflicts of interest that I think may potentially color the views of each source, when applicable (e.g., if a source comes from a manufacturer of a specific product, the source is likely going to focus on the things their product is good at while spending little time addressing things their product is bad at). I also attempt to identify any other information that might suggest that (some of) the sources’ conclusions are suspect, such as glaring flaws in statistical methodology.

The intention is to present a well-developed jumping-off-point for your own research. You don’t just have to take my word for things; you can do reading on your own and come to your own conclusions.

Note that these source pages may contain (many) more sources than those explicitly referenced on the corresponding page in the Pages section or Reviews section; they are more than simply glorified works cited pages. I commonly do a lot more background reading than what I end up using directly.

List of sources