book review

Criteria

Needs Development (D)

Standard

(C)

Above Standard

(B)

Excellent

(A)

Analytical Thought

- Is primarily descriptive; includes little or no evidence of analytical thought

- Does not address the assigned task, or does so only tangentially

- Includes some evidence of analytical thought in a primarily descriptive essay

- Addresses the basics of the assigned task, but does not fully address all aspects

- Is primarily an analytical essay that uses description to support analytical thought

- Satisfactorily addresses all aspects of the assigned task

- Includes extensive evidence of analysis and original thought

- Clear analysis of complex historical and/or historiographical concepts

- Fully addresses all aspects of the task

Factual Accuracy

- Contains many errors that detract from summary – does not identify book’s argument

- Makes no attempt to address historiography

- Summarizes some of the book’s main points – does not address central argument

- Attempts to address historiography – may include some errors

- Provides a clear summary of most of the book’s main points

- Identifies the book’s historiographical contribution – may not provide full explanation

- Provides a clear, concise summary of the book’s main argument

- Correctly identifies and fully explains the book’s historiographical contribution

Use of Evidence

- Provides little or no support for ideas from the book or other shared texts

- Evidence is drawn from irrelevant or unauthorized sources

- Approved sources are paraphrased or quoted without appropriate citation

- Uses some specific, historical evidence from the book to support the argument; may not be entirely relevant

- Little to no use of other shared texts

- Includes some specific, relevant information from the book to address specific points in the essay

- Uses some evidence from other shared texts

- Sources are cited in Chicago Style format but may include some formatting errors

- Utilizes evidence from the text in an analytically rigorous fashion to support the argument

- Uses evidence from other shared texts to support analysis

- All sources are appropriately cited in Chicago Style format

Organization/Flow

- Lacks a clear introduction and/or conclusion

- Lacks effective transitions between paragraphs/ideas

- Lack of chronology obscures narrative or logical flow of ideas

- Includes an introduction and conclusion, but does not clearly identify the book’s central argument

- Paragraphs may lack appropriate transitions or logical flow

- May include some logical or chronological digressions

- Includes a clear introduction and conclusion that lay out a relevant thesis statement - may be simple restatement of book’s argument

- Paragraphs and ideas are logically arranged but may lack transitions

- Includes few chronological or logical digressions

- A clear, concise introduction and conclusion clearly lay out a valid thesis statement that goes beyond simple restatement of the book’s argument

- Ideas are clearly arranged in paragraphs with logical transitions and clear analytical focus

Clarity/Writing Mechanics

- Numerous and repeated errors in grammar, syntax, word choice, and/or punctuation detract from the argument or make the paper difficult to follow

- Little or no evidence of revision, editing, or proofreading

- Includes some errors in writing mechanics that may detract from the argument at times

- Few writing errors are repeated throughout the paper

- Conforms to some assigned technical requirements for presentation

- Prose includes few errors that do not significantly detract from the essay’s argument

- Writing errors are isolated and do not repeat throughout the paper

- Conforms to most technical requirements

- Prose is clear and concise and includes no major errors in writing mechanics

- Essay uses appropriate scholarly language and academic tone; avoids colloquialisms and flowery language

- Conforms to all technical requirements