Good (G)
OK
Marginal (M)
Poor (P)
Entirely convincing,
even compelling.
Uses logical and/or
emotional appeals
effectively. Handles
all elements of the
assignment with
skill; develops and
supports ideas using
well-chosen
examples and
creative details.
Speaks to audience.
Mostly
convincing.
Handles elements
of the assignment
with skill;
develops and
supports ideas in
a better than
average way.
Considers
audience.
Some arguments
are convincing.
Handles assignment
material
competently;
includes basic
supporting
information; is
factually correct.
Generally considers
audience.
Mostly unconvincing.
Missing elements;
leaves out essential
supporting
information; some
minor factual errors.
Too little
consideration of
audience.
Entirely unconvincing.
Missing major elements:
major factual errors and
misinterpretations exist.
Projects a negative image
of the writer and/or the
organization. No
consideration of
audience.
Mechanical
Makes almost no
grammatical or
syntactical errors.
Occasionally
makes minor
grammatical or
syntactical errors
that only a copy
editor would
notice.
Proofreads well
enough to
eliminate most
errors.
Occasionally makes
noticeable minor
grammatical or
syntactical errors.
Occasionally makes
disruptive grammatical
or syntactical errors.
Projects a negative
image of the writer
and/or the
organization.
Frequently makes
disruptive grammatical or
syntactical errors. Projects
a dangerously negative
image of the writer
and/or the organization.
Concision
The words chosen
are efficient and
concise. All
statements are
relevant. Thus,
expressed ideas can
be more easily
understood.
The words
chosen are to
some extent
concise; some
irrelevant
statements are
included.
Occasionally wordy;
the words chosen
are excessive and
redundant or
several irrelevant
statements are
included.
Wordy; the words
chosen are excessive
or redundant.
There is redundancy
across paper sections.
Some irrelevant
statements or details
are included.
Overly wordy; the words
chosen are excessive and
redundant. Many
irrelevant statements and
details. Redundant
statements. Thus, it is
harder to follow the ideas
expressed
Clarity
Entirely clear. The
work follows a
logical order, which
can be easily
identified.
Background and
detail support thesis
well; facts and
arguments are
connected: there
are no leaps in logic.
Precise language is
used.
Mostly clear. The
work follows a,
more or less,
logical order,
which is not
easily identified.
Good background
and detail; facts
and arguments
connected.
Precise language
is used.
Moderately clear.
The work follows a,
more or less, logical
order, which is not
easily identified.
Sufficient
background and
detail; facts and
arguments mostly
connected. Choice
of language should
be more precise.
Too much is unclear:
unclear topic
sentences and
arrangement of ideas,
The work has a
vague/weak logical
structure and several
logical gaps and
repetitions. Weak
background and detail;
some facts and
arguments
disconnected. The
words chosen are
ambiguous.
Mostly unclear. The work
lacks an identifiable
structure and it is
impossible to follow many
of the ideas expressed.
Insufficient background or
detail; facts and
arguments not connected.
The words chosen are
ambiguous.
Persuasiveness
Excellent (EXC)
Flow
Followed
Instructions /
Attn to Detail
Flows so well that
reader does not
need to reread any
passage.
Flows well
enough so that
reader rarely
needs to reread
any passage.
More or less flows,
such that a
complete readthrough of the
whole is necessary
to understand any
part. Some
transitions among
sentences or
paragraphs are
missing.
The work is difficult to
follow without
rereading many
passages, some
several times. Too
many transitions
among sentences and
paragraphs are
missing.
Does not flow at all.
Requires several readthroughs to understand a
little bit. Almost no
transitions among
sentences and among
paragraphs. A very
disorganized,
unprofessional document.
Followed all
instructions.
Missed some
instructions.
Too many instructions not
followed.