Guides are more than lists. They are instructional tools, telling users not just where but how to do research, which often requires longer narrative or explanatory text. There is an inevitable tension between conflicting purposes: bulleted lists for quick findability, vs. sentences and paragraphs for explanation. Try to alternate modes: break up explanations with bullets, sub-headings, and other visual cues to group smaller "chunks" of information.

Names of resources whose subject area is not clear, e.g. JSTOR, Francis, PAIS, MLA, CIAO should always have brief descriptions added to them to indicate the type of content.

As students tend to use the first resources listed, it is generally preferable to list them in order of importance rather than alphabetically.

Think about other ways to arrange the sources. For example: in order by importance or value, as you see it; from broad to narrow in subject scope; by date coverage; etc.

It is also desirable to keep lists of resources short – maybe to the top five key resources featured prominently. One may also consider breaking long lists of resources into different boxes based on similar content type.

Our own usability tests (as well as those published by MIT and others) show that students are confused by excessive content. So, tabs, text, lists, number of pages and boxes should be kept to a minimum. 

There's no magic number, but if you have more than 7 or 8 resources in a single content box you should think about how it can divided into more than one box. 

Strive for usability, not comprehensiveness.

Use the Book from the Catalog feature to highlight print resources. 

The best resource may be print. However, long lists of resources inaccessible via the web may frustrate or confuse users. Try to mix print and online resources together.

For the most part student comments, ratings, recommendations should be avoided. Students are seeking advice from experts not from other students.