1. Focus    

        

Does the writer establish and maintain a clear purpose that is appropriate for the intended reader and topic? Does the author explicitly state his/her objective or thesis about a specific topic near the beginning of the paper? Does the writer provide information and details that are important to the topic and relevant to the focus? Does the author cite literature relevant to the thesis? Does the conclusion summarize findings from the literature and provide insight in relation to the objective of the paper?

First summarize what you perceived as the thesis so that the writer can see whether readers can discern the controlling point of the paper. Then make specific comments about what trouble you had in understanding the focus of the paper. Be sure to give specific advice for how to make the focus more effective and praise-oriented comments about strengths that made the writing good.

_______________________________--____________________________

 

Based on your comments above, how would you rate the focus of this paper?

7. Excellent         There is a sharp, distinct thesis made about a single topic, and the body of the paper is relevant to the thesis. The conclusion clearly summarizes the literature in relation to the thesis.

6. Very good       There is a thesis stated about a single topic, and the body of the paper is mostly relevant to the thesis. The conclusion summarizes the literature in relation to the thesis.

5. Good      There was an apparent thesis made about a single topic, and most of the body was relevant to the thesis. The conclusion addressed the thesis.

4. Average There was a vague thesis about a topic and some evidence of the topic. The conclusion somewhat addressed the topic.

3. Poor       There was no apparent thesis but some evidence of a specific topic. The conclusion somewhat addressed the topic.

2. Very poor        There was no apparent thesis and minimal evidence of a specific topic.

1. Disastrous      There was no apparent thesis and no evidence of a topic.

 

_______________________________--____________________________

 

_______________________________--____________________________

 

2. Organization  

        

Is the organization of the paper clear through use of headings and subheadings? Is a logical order of sequence maintained? Is the order developed and sustained within and across paragraphs using transitional devices and including introduction and conclusion? Do paragraphs deal with one subject? Is the introduction inviting? Is the conclusion satisfying?

Comment on the organization of this paper. Describe how the paper is organized and explain whether you find the organization helps develop the thesis. Give suggestions for ways to improve the organization.

 

_______________________________--____________________________

 

Based on your comments above, how would you rate the organization of this paper?

7. Excellent         Sophisticated arrangement of content with evident and/or subtle transitions.

6. Very good       Effective arrangement of content that sustains a logical order with evidence of transitions.

5. Good      Functional arrangement of content that sustains a logical order with some evidence of transitions.

4. Average Consistent arrangement of content with or without attempts at transitions.

3. Poor       Confused or inconsistent arrangement of content with or without attempts at transitions.

2. Very poor        Minimal control of content arrangement without attempts at transitions.

1. Disastrous      No apparent content arrangement and no attempt at transitions.

 

_______________________________--____________________________

 

_______________________________--____________________________

 

3. Flow      

        

Is there a smooth flow within sentences and between paragraphs? Is the writing style clear and direct? Does the author avoid the passive voice? Is every sentence important and to the point instead of using a lot of fluffy language that doesn’t add information? Does the author use language that is clear to the audience?

Provide specific comments about the flow of the paper. If the writing style is not clear and direct, give specific comments to help the author understand the weaknesses. If you point out a weakness, provide specific suggestions for improving the weakness.

 

_______________________________--____________________________

 

Based on your comments above, how would you rate the flow of this paper?

7. Excellent         Excellent flow with clear language, active and direct sentences, and useful transitions between sections.

6. Very good       Very good flow with mostly clear language, active and direct sentences, and useful transitions between sections.

5. Good      Good flow with satisfactory language and many transitions between sections.

4. Average Sufficient flow with satisfactory language and some transitions between sections.

3. Poor       Limited flow with some indirect and passive sentences, superfluous wording, and only a few transitions between sections.

2. Very poor        Poor flow with many indirect and passive sentences, superfluous wording, and no transitions between sections.

1. Disastrous      Very poor flow consisting mainly of indirect and passive sentences, superfluous wording, and no transitions between sections. Very difficult to understand what is being said.