Introduction employs an attention getter and a clear thesis statement.

Introduction is less than imaginative;the thesis is clear.

Introduction does not clearly identify the thesis of the paper.

There is a clear correlation between the outline and the body of the paper.

The outline gives an overview of the paper, but the paper deviates from it somewhat.

There is no outline, OR the outline does not match the paper.

The paper is organized into a logical argument.

The paper is organized into a clear piece of exposition (It presents information rather than argument.

The paper has no clear organization.

Every subpoint is supported with adequate research.

Some subpoints develop the discussion without reference to research.

The paper reads more like an original essay than a research paper.

The research includes at least one interview.

<-------------------------------->

The research does not include an interview.

Every subtopic is explicitly related to the thesis.

The subtopics are implicitly related to the thesis.

The writer goes off on tangents instead of linking everything to the thesis.

Every paragraph has a transition to the next.

Some paragraphs have no transitions.

Many paragraphs have not transitions.

The conclusion sums up the paper, restates the thesis, and gives the reader something to think about.

The conclusion sums up the paper and restates the thesis.

The paper trails off with no real conclusion,O OR the conclusion introduces a new point.

THE WRITER EXPLAINED AND/OR INTERPRETED ALL RESEARCHED MATERIAL.

THE WRITER SLIPPED INTO PATCHING NOTES TOGETHER OCCASIONALLY; MOST OF THE MATERIAL IS INTERPRETED.

TOO MUCH OF THE PAPER IS PATCHWORK; THERE IS NOT ENOUGH DISCUSSION FROM THE WRITER.

Paper includes title page, outline, body, and works cited page.

<-------------------------------->

Some parts of the paper are missing.

Everything that should be documented in the paper is documented.

<-------------------------------->

Some researched material is not documented.

The paper includes a good number of direct quotes; all quotes are properly introduced (speaker i.d. & credentials).

The paper includes a few direct quotes; they are properly introduced, but there are not enough.

The paper includes no direct quotes.

The paper is 8-10 pages long.

The paper is 7 pages long.

The paper is shorter that 7 pages.

The writer used 8-10 sources.

The writer used 7 sources.

The writer used fewer than 7 sources.

The sources are current and scholarly.

Most sources are current and scholarly, but a few are not.

Several sources are old or not scholarly.

Internal citations include author's last name (or article title) and page number, followed by a period, e.g. (Smith,22).

<-------------------------------->

Writer used footnotes @ and internal citation OR used magazine title instead of article title when there is no author listed.

Long quotes (4+ lines) are set off, introduced by speaker, and not in quotation marks.

<-------------------------------->

Long quotes are not set off.

The Works Cited page is in the correct format.

The Works Cited page is basically correct but there are a few minor errors (e.g. items are numbered).

Works Cited page is incomplete or incorrect in format.

The paper has few, if any, errors in grammar and usage.

The paper has some errors in grammar and usage, making reading difficult.

Several errors in grammar and usage make reading nearly impossible.

The paper is nearly free of errors in spelling and punctuation; therefore it is easy to read.

The paper has some errors in spelling and mechanics, making reading difficult.

Several errors in spelling an mechanics cause great distraction to the reader.