OUR EIGHT CRITERIA
P4 POINTS IN COMPARSION WITH P3: INCREASED:
CONCISENESS (45); DOCUMENTATION (25), PROOFREADING (18)
REDUCED:
WORD CHOICE (40); VISUAL RHETORIC (13); PUNCTUATION (12)
1. UNITY, COHERENCE, AND FLOW::
WORTH 18 POINTS
7. Perfect flow,
with evident or subtle
transitions wherever needed.
6. Very good: almost
perfect flow with evidence
of transitions.
5. Good: fairly
good flow, with some evidence of transitions, with perhaps one obvious
interruption.
4. Average: average
flow with some interruptions,
with or without attempts at transitions.
3. Poor: poor flow,
with quite a few interruptions, with or without attempts at transitions.
2. Very poor: Minimal
control, with few if any attempts at transitions,
that is, very poor flow, with many interruptions.
1. Disastrous: No apparent control, no attempt at transitions in the prose, that is, almost no flow.
2. Organization and Logical Order of the Prose,
worth 9 POINTS
Is the organization clear from the start and a logical order of sequence maintained?
7. Apparently perfect
organization and logical order.
6. Very good: Effective
organization and fairly logical order.
5. Good: Functional
organization and fairly logical order.
4. Average: Consistent
organization and some logical order, with some interruptions.
3. Poor : Confused
arrangement and inconsistent logical order, with quite a
few interruptions.
2. Very poor: Minimal
control and little logical order, with many interruptions.
1. Disastrous: No
apparent control, no logical order, no apparent organization.
3.
Integration
of Verbal and Visual Rhetoric,
worth 13 POINTS
7. Excellent:
Sophisticated arrangement of VERBAL AND MULTIMEDIA. MULTIMEDIA includes
not only still images but also movies, animated images, sound, Flash, or
other special effects, but all are essential to the essay. All are placed
in the text right next to the words that discuss or refer to them. The words
clearly connect the multimedia to the argument and keep the flow of the prose
as well as the multimedia flowing well.
6. Very good: Effective arrangement of VERBAL AND VISUAL/MULTIMEDIA. MULTIMEDIA includes not only still images but at least one other media, but all are essential to the essay. All are placed in the text right next to the words that discuss or refer to them. The words connect the multimedia to the argument fairly well and sustain the flow of the prose.
5. Good: Functional
arrangement of WORDS AND PICTURES. All images are placed in the text right
next to the words that discuss or refer to them. The words connect the
images to the argument fairly well.
4. Average: Consistent
arrangement of WORDS AND PICTURES. Allor all but one of images are placed
in the text right next to the words that discuss or refer to them. The
words connect the images to the argument somewhat.
3. Poor : Confused or inconsistent arrangement of WORDS AND PICTURES. Images are not usually placed in the text right next to the words that discuss or refer to them.
2. Very poor: Minimal control of PICTURES in relation to the rest of the essay. Images are not usually discussed in the text.
1. Disastrous: No apparent logic to the arrangement of VERBAL AND VISUAL/MULTIMEDIA or no VISUAL/MULTIMEDIA.
4.Proofreading: Typos, Spelling, and Grammar errors,
worth 18 POINTS
Has the author re-read the essay carefully enough to catch basic proofreading errors, such as typos and missing words?
Are there any grammatical or spelling errors?
7 There are no apparent grammar, spelling, or proofreading errors.
6 There are one or two minor errors, but the prose flows fairly well.
5 There are two or three minor errors, but the prose moves along well enough.
4 There are a number of errors that force the reader to hesitate, however briefly, to figure out what the writer intended. There is some doubt as to how much of the assigned reading on spellchecks, and proofreading has been read or understood. In as much as half of the essay the flow would benefit from better proofreading.
3 Apparently not much of the assigned reading on spellchecks and proofreading has been read or understood, forcing the reader often to hesitate, however briefly, to figure out what the writer intended. In as much as two-thirds of the essay the flow would benefit from better proofreading.
2. The author appears often unaware of the appropriate use of grammar, spellchecks,and proofreading, and most of the flow of the essay suffers as a result.
1. The proofreading, and/or spelling, and/or grammar is atrocious and the essay does not flow at all.
5. Documentation,
worth 25 POINTS
NO PRINT SOURCE NOT FOUND ON INTERNET = 0 POINTS
Has the author revealed the sources of his images and quotations? Has the author provided complete information about these sources? Has the author followed the University of Chicago footnote system in each and every detail? (In the website version these will be endnotes, but in the hard copy they must be footnotes.)
7. All the images and quotations are fully documented perfectly according to the University of Chicago documentation system.
6 All the images and quotations are documented according to the University of Chicago documentation system, but there are one or two minor errors.
5 All the images and quotations are documented according to the University of Chicago documentation system, but there are two or three minor errors.
4 Not all the images and quotations are documented according to the University of Chicago documentation system. There is some doubt as to how much of the reading in the handbook on the University of Chicago documentation system has been read or understood. A third or so of the images and/or quotations need better documentation.
3 Apparently not much of reading in the handbook on the University of Chicago documentation system has been read or understood, forcing the reader often to hesitate, however briefly, to figure out what the writer's sources are. Most of the images and/or quotations need better documentation.
2. The author appears unaware of the University of Chicago documentation system.
1. The author appears unaware of the need for documentation.
6. Punctuation,
worth 12 POINTS
Has the author used punctuation as the traffic signals of the language: telling us to when to slow down, what to notice, when to detour, when to stop? Has the author used punctuation to guide you through the essay without hesitating or stumbling (and thus making you retrace your steps and read a sentence again)? Has the author used punctuation the way a composer uses musical notation to show you how to perform the prose in your mind?
Has the author read and understood the relevant readings in the course anthology (Eats, Shoots, and Leaves) and handbook on punctuation, such as the following? Are the paired bracketing devices - - parentheses, dashes, quotation marks, appositives (paired commas) - -complete? Has the author avoided comma splices? Does the author make good use of colons and semicolons? Does the author know how to use hyphens with compound adjectives and numbers? Does the author know when to use quotation marks and how they work with other forms of punctuation? Does the author know when to use ellipses and when to use brackets instead of parentheses? Has the author read and understand the sections on punctuation in the anthology and in the Penguin handbook covering not only the issues above but also periods, apostrophes, exclamation points, slashes, etc. ?
7 The author has used punctuation like a great composer uses musical notation and as a result the prose flows beautifully. The punctuation appears to be perfect.
6 The punctuation guides the reader effectively, and there are no obvious moments of hesitation or stumbling as a result, but the punctuation could probably work even better if revised.
5 The punctuation is generally effective, but there are one or two places where it could be changed, added, or removed to improve the flow of the essay.
4 There is some doubt as to how much of the assigned reading on punctuation has been read or understood. In as much as half of the essay the flow would benefit from changing, adding, or removing punctuation.
3 .Not much of the assigned reading on punctuation has been read or understood. In as much as two-thirds of the essay the flow would benefit from changing, adding, or removing punctuation.
2. The author appears unaware of the appropriate use of many modes of punctuation, and most of the flow of the essay suffers as a result.
1. The punctuation is atrocious and the essay does not flow at all.
7. Word choice,
worth 40 POINTS
Is the best word in the best place throughout this essay? How many words do not seem to be the very best possible choices? Has the author been as specific as possible? Has the author used examples and “word pictures” as needed, that is, “illustrations, analogies, vivid quotations, metaphors, similes” (Trimble 76)? Does the prose delight the reader with wit, fresh phrases, new insights, fresh images? Has the reader avoided empty abstractions?
See how abstractions are the opposite of what is sought in writing in English courses.
7 The diction is fresh, witty, and very specific. You cannot see anywhere that it could possibly be improved.
6 You cannot see how the diction might be easily improved, but it is not very witty, fresh, or striking.
5 The diction is first-rate but there are one or two words that could be replaced with better ones.
4 The diction is good but there are a number of words and/or one or two sections that might be improved by revision.
3. The diction is adequate but the author does not appear to have taken the time to revise for word choice.
2. The diction is mediocre, boring, at times vague: lots of useless repetition, empty abstractions, passive voice, needlessly protracted sentences, empty intensifiers, expletives and impersonal constructions like “there is” and “it is.”
1. The word choice is so poor that at times it is difficult to tell exactly what the author is trying to say.
8. Conciseness,
worth 45 POINTS
Is the author diluting the force of his message by using too many words? Or is the author using only as many words as are absolutely necessary, avoiding repetition, redundance, wordiness, unnecessary modifiers, empty intensifiers, unnecessarily long and convoluted sentences?
7. Succinct, powerful prose, undiluted by unnecessary verbiage.
6. Economical prose. No section, no word choice, could be easily revised for conciseness.
5. Fairly concise prose, but various words if not sections suggest there is some redundance or repetition that could cut to increase the conciseness.
4. Adequate prose but some repetition, redundance, wordiness, unnecessary modifiers, empty intensifiers, or unnecessarily long and convoluted sentences and thus about a third of the essaywould benefit clearly from cutting the waste.
3. About half of the essay needs excision of repetition, redundance, wordiness, unnecessary modifiers, empty intensifiers, or unnecessarily long and convoluted sentences.
2. Essay as a whole needs excision of repetition, redundance, wordiness, unnecessary modifiers, empty intensifiers, or unnecessarily long and convoluted sentences.
1. The excess verbiage is so great that some of the meaning of the essay is obscured.