WeightingCategroy54321ResearchA significant amount of independent, scholarly research was undertaken. The majority of sources are from peer-reviewed publications or quality texts. Research is solidly within the parameters of the analysis and thesis argument.A reasonable amount of indepndent, scholarly research was undertaken.Sources are mainly from peer-reviewed publications or quality texts.Research is sound but predictable.Minimal independent, scholarly research was undertaken.Sources mainly rely on questionable materials.Research is weak and unoriginal.ear lack of independent, scholarly research was undertaken.Sources depend heavily on weak materials.Research is weak and unoriginal, but also fails to support argument.Little to no research undertaken, scholarly or not.Little evidence that research was used in this paper.Argument (Into/Conclusion)Original and well thought out thesis is clearly stated in beginning of paper.Method of proving the thesis is established early on.Thesis provides backbone of analysis and reaches a satisfying conclusion based on what was proposed in beginning.Interesting but predictable thesis is clearly stated at the beginning of the paper.Thesis tends toward more description than argument, leading to a weaker conclusion.Methodology is there but isn’t clearly laid out, or is laid out but not followed through on an expert level.Thesis is fundamentally descriptive or dependent on value judgements (ie. Good/bad, right/wrong).The method of analysis is vague or poorly laid out.Research does not adequately support analysis.No easily identifiable thesis and/or little in the way of method.There is no conclusion because no argument was established early on.No thesis and/or no method.Conclusion is heavily flawed or non-existent.Analysis (Body of Paper)Analysis is strong and clearly follows a logical pattern.Research is strongly tied into analysis to support thesis.New information is useful and propels the paper from thesis to conclusion.Analysis is good but there are some significant weaknesses or lapses.Paper occasionally drifts off-topic or into territory that isn’t adequately supported by the research.Research questions are interesting but potentially unrealistic in terms of nd/or level of research undertaken.Analysis is unintersting or uninspired, tending toward description.Research questions are poorly laid out and inadequately explored.Research does not adequatly support analysis.Research questions are not identified at the outset.Little interaction between research and analysis.More description than analysis.Analysis is nearly non-existent, weak, minimal, and unsupported by research.ClarityPaper is easy to read and follow.Language and grammar have minimal error.Terms and argumentation are clearly laid out and well-defined.Paper is well written but suffers from some grammatical or spelling errors.Language is clear but lacks depth.Some lapses in terms and argumentation.Links into new paragaphs is weak.Paper has substantial but not quite major grammatical or spelling errors.Language is unclear.Terms and argumentation are not well defined.Paper jumps from point to point.Major problems with grammar and spelling.Language is very unclear, confusing, or difficult to follow.Heavily lacking in terms and argumentation.Language is sub-par for university, riddled with grammatical or spelling errors.Analysis is difficult to follow and lacks any sense of flow.FormatEasy to read font (ie. 12pt, , ).Bibliography follows a consistent and recognized style.Citations are thorough and well documented in paper.Paper follows most formatting with some minor errors.Citations are solid but some omissions exist.There are some substantial problems with technical requirements of paper.Citations are weak and/or incomplete.There are major problems with the technical requirements of the paper.Next to no citations and/or no bibliography or does not follow a scholarly style.The paper does not follow a scholarly format in either technical or citation format.