Criteria for Evaluation

1. Development and Analysis

1. Does the paper include sufficient analysis, enough for an 6-8 page paper?
2. Does it significantly expand the reader’s understanding of the text or concept? Is the analysis of high quality, making in-depth, original, and interesting points about the work?
3. Does the analysis look closely at the language and themes of the text?
4. Are assertions backed up by references to the text, including specific quotations?
5. Are the quotations analyzed sufficiently?
6. Does the paper consist of summaries of the plot?
7. Does the paper simply repeat obvious information or generalizations?
8. If quotations are used, are they just summed up with statements such as “This is how the author thought about X issue” instead of being analyzed?
9. Are there any parts of the paper that seem irrelevant or tangential to the argument?

2. Structure

Organization

1. Does the introduction introduce the title and author of the works being discussed? Does it explain the scope of the paper (what the paper will discuss)?
2. Does the paper have a clear thesis stated in the introduction?
3. Does the thesis meet the three criteria for a thesis?
   1. To be limited enough for the the assignment.
   2. To be arguable and not be merely a statement of fact or a generalization.
   3. To be unified sufficiently around a central idea.
4. Does the introduction contain non-thesis statements such as "In this paper I will discuss X story"?
5. Is the development of the thesis and the progression of the argument apparent throughout the paper?
6. Does the conclusion indicate what was accomplished or proven in the paper?

Paragraphs

1. Can the reader readily understand what each individual paragraph contributes to the argument?
2. Does the paper use topic sentences, transitions, and other features to create coherence and structure?
3. Are the paragraphs unified? Does each paragraph develop a single point (or set of points related to one idea)?
4. Are the paragraphs coherent? Do the sentences within them "hang together" so that the analysis is smoothly developed?
5. Are the paragraphs complete or fully developed? Do they contain appropriate levels of analysis and supporting evidence (such as quotations)?

3. Style

1. Is the quality of writing at the site clear and fluent?
2. Are the sentences grammatically correct, even if some are choppy or wordy?
3. Are there instances of awkward phrasing, vagueness, wordiness, incorrect word use, or other problems?
4. Do major errors such as comma splices, fragments, and fused sentences appear in the text?
5. Are the sentences free from errors in parallelism, agreement, pronoun reference, tense shifts, and so on?
6. Does the paper include an appropriate level of formality?
7. Does it substitute statements of reaction (I think/I feel/I liked/I was disappointed in) for actual analysis?

4. Sources

1. Are the sources used legitimate scholarly sources, such as peer-reviewed journals or books?
2. Does the paper cite at least two scholarly sources (not Wikipedia or online pages but articles published in journals or books)?
3. Do the sources contribute to the author’s argument, and does the author make it clear how they support it?

5. Mechanics

1. Are the mechanical features of writing (capitalization, punctuation, and so on) correct?
2. Are quotations introduced correctly, with appropriate signal phrases?
3. Are there any “dropped quotations”?
4. Are titles punctuated correctly?

6. Format

1. Is a Works Cited page included?
2. Does the Works Cited page use the correct MLA format?
3. Are sources cited correctly using MLA style?
4. Does the paper include page numbers, a title, and an appropriate header (name, date, and so on)?
5. Are the pages numbered?