Hamlet Literary Analysis Rubric
Introduction
Intro
/15
6
5
4
3
2
1
Includes appropriate, wellintegrated background info;
includes full name of author and
play; thesis is a carefully crafted
one-two sentences, and has a claim
about how Hamlet is characterized
that features at least 3 green words.
15-14
Includes appropriate amount of
background info; includes full
name of author and play; thesis
is one-two sentences and has a
claim about how Hamlet is
characterized that features at
least 3 green words.
13-12
Includes background info;
includes full name of author
and play; thesis is one-two
sentences and/or has a claim
about how Hamlet is
characterized. May not
include at least 3 green
words.
11-10
May include background
info; may include full
name of author and play;
thesis is present, but weak
and missing green words
and/or a clear claim.
Missing background
info and/or full name
of author and play ;
Thesis is weak or not
present
Inadequate
or missing
completely
7-6
5-0
Ideas and Content
9-8
/60
6
5
4
3
2
1
Proof
*Clear topic sentences
w/ specific claim that
references green words
in the thesis.
Definitive statements
*Clear topic sentence
w/ specific claim that
references green words
in the thesis.; clear
statements
*Clear topic sentence, but claim
could be more specific and may
not reference green words in the
thesis. Some statements are
underdeveloped or undeveloped.
*Effective quotes are
well integrated and
support the argument
*Quotes are adequately
integrated and are relevant to the
article
Commentary
*Quotes are
masterfully selected
and integrated to
enhance the argument
*Topic sentence is
somewhat unclear. No
specific claim.
*Statements are minimal or
undeveloped
*Quotes are, in some cases,
irrelevant; awkward
integration
*Flawlessly ties proof/
statement; enhanced
evaluation of character
*Effectively ties
proof/statement;
good/above average
evaluation of character
*Ties proof to statement but
lacks full evaluation of character
*Writing lacks a
central idea or
purpose.
*No statements
made
*Quotes, if used at
all, are not
integrated and/or are
irrelevant
* No tie between
proof and statement.
No evaluation of
character.
*No revision
*Evidence of
meaningful revision
60-54
*Evidence of
meaningful revision
52-48
*Topic sentence is
unclear
*No evidence of an
attempt to develop
statements
*Quote use is haphazard
and/or irrelevant; no
clear integration
*Ties between proof and
statement are almost
nonexistent. No
evaluation of character
*Some words changed
around, but no real
revision
35-30
Statement
Revision
Conclusion
Conclusion
*Revision is apparent, but some
of it is simply topical and not
meaningful
47-42
*Ties between proof and
statement are unclear and
lack an evaluation of
character.
*Revision is mostly topical,
not meaningful.
41-36
29-0
/15
6
5
4
3
2
1
Synthesized reflection of all
key character traits covered
in thesis and body;
thorough evaluation of
Hamlet as a man; thorough
discussion of fatal flaw
15-14
Reflective of all key
character traits covered
in thesis and body; solid
evaluation of Hamlet as a
man; solid discussion of
fatal flaw
13-12
Reflective of most key
character traits covered
in thesis and body;
effective evaluation of
Hamlet as a man;
discussion of fatal flaw
11-10
Reflective of some key
character traits covered
in thesis and body; basic
evaluation of Hamlet as a
man; discussion of fatal
flaw
9-8
Reflective of few/no key
character traits covered
in thesis and body; weak
evaluation of Hamlet as a
man; weak/no discussion
of fatal flaw
7-6
Lacks reflection of key
character traits covered
in thesis and body; no
evaluation of Hamlet as
a man; no discussion of
fatal flaw
5
Sentence Fluency, Conventions, Word Choice
Sentence
Fluency
Conventions
Word Choice
Sentences show a
high degree of
craftsmanship,
strong and varied
structure
10-9
Exceptionally
strong control of
standard writing
conventions Errors
are few and minor
Writing flows; however,
connections between phrases
or sentences may be less than
fluid. Somewhat varied
structure
7
Control of standard writing
conventions. Minor errors,
while perhaps noticeable, do
not impede readability.
Writing tends to be
mechanical. Occasional
awkward constructions
Writing tends to be
choppy or rambling.
Many awkward
constructions
Writing is difficult to follow.
Sentences tend to be
incomplete, rambling or
awkward.
6
Limited control of
standard writing
conventions. Errors
begin to impair
readability.
5
Limited control of
standard writing
conventions. Errors
impair readability
4-0
Numerous errors in usage,
spelling, punctuation,
capitalization distract the
reader and make the
text difficult to read..
10-9
Rich, broad range of
words, appropriate
to audience
and purpose.
7
Variety of words that are
functional and
appropriate to audience and
purpose
5
Language is monotonous
and/or misused, detracting
from the meaning and
impact.
4-0
Extremely limited
vocabulary ;
vague or imprecise language.
10-9
8
7
6
Ordinary, lacking
interest, precision and
variety, or may be
inappropriate to audience
and purpose; generic
6
5
4-0
Overall Impression
6
Full paper
/30
Easy flow and
rhythm. Sentences
are carefully crafted
with strong and
varied structure
8
Strong control of
standard writing
conventions. Errors
are few and minor
that they do not
impede readability.
8
Broad range of
words, appropriate
to audience and
purpose
/30
Paper is masterfully written.
Ideas flow together with
transitions both within and
between paragraphs.
Abundant evidence of
student’s ability to
comprehend and analyze
complex text.
*Student has gone above and
beyond the minimum
requirements.
30-27
5
4
3
2
1
Paper is coherent and
cohesive. Ideas flow together
with transitions both within
and between paragraphs.
Abundant evidence of
student’s ability to
comprehend and analyze
complex text.
*Student has gone above and
beyond the minimum
requirements.
26-24
Paper is mostly coherent and
cohesive. Some summary
rather than analysis. Ideas
usually flow together with
transitions both within and
between paragraphs.
*Adequate evidence of
student’s ability to
comprehend and analyze
complex text.
23-21
Paper lacks consistency in
places, though topics are
related. Mostly summary
rather than analysis. Ideas
sometimes flow together
with transitions within or
between paragraphs. Some
evidence of student’s
ability to comprehend and
analyze complex text.
20-18
Paper is inconsistent,
contradictory, or
underdeveloped.
Summary rather than
analysis. Lacks
transitions. Little
evidence of a
student’s ability to
comprehend and
analyze complex text.
17-15
Off prompt,
and/or
complete
summary. No
evidence of
student’s
ability to
comprehend
and analyze
complex text.
14
Comments:
TOTAL:
/150