5.0 %Mechanics of Writing Mechanical errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice and/or sentence construction are used. Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register), sentence structure, and/or word choice are present. Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are used. Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. A variety of sentence structures and effective figures of speech are used. Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.

20.0 %Thesis Development and Purpose Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim. Thesis and/or main claim are insufficiently developed and/or vague; purpose is not clear. Thesis and/or main claim are apparent and appropriate to purpose. Thesis and/or main claim are clear and forecast the development of the paper. They are descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose. Thesis and/or main claim are clear and comprehensive; the essence of the paper is contained within the thesis.

Synthesis of source information is present, but pedantic. Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis. Synthesis of source information is present and meaningful. Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative.

10.0 %Synthesis and Argument No synthesis of source information is evident. Statement of purpose is not followed to a justifiable conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses non-credible sources. Synthesis of source information is attempted, but is not successful. Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility.

40.0 %Description of the Evidence to Support Common Themes A description of the evidence to support common themes is either inappropriate, missing, or not evident to the reader. A description of the evidence to support common themes is present, but inaccurate or illogical. A description of the evidence to support common themes is presented, but is cursory and lacking in depth. A description of the evidence to support common themes is present and thorough. A description of the evidence to support common themes is thoroughly presented with rich detail. 10.0 %Conclusion A conclusion is not presented. A conclusion is presented, but incomplete or illogical. A conclusion is presented, but it does not include an overall summary of themes found in the articles or does not connect well to the thesis statement. A conclusion is presented and includes an overall summary of themes found in the articles and reasonably connects to the thesis statement. A conclusion is thoroughly presented including an overall summary of themes found in the articles and is strongly connected to the thesis statement.

1 Unsatisfactory 0.00% 2 Less than Satisfactory 73.00% 3 Satisfactory 82.00% 4 Good 91.00% 5 Excellent 100.00% 100.0 %Criteria 10.0 %Introduction An introduction is either missing or not evident to the reader. An introduction is present, but incomplete or illogical. An introduction is presented, but does not contextualize the topic well. An introduction is present and adequately contextualizes the topic. An introduction is thoroughly presented and vividly contextualizes the topic.