Article Review

Article Review Rubric

First (70-100) 2:1 (60-69) 2:2 (50-59) 3rd (40-49) Fail (0-39)

Knowledge and understanding of key theories, concepts, and sources

20% Confident engagement with relevant theories, concepts, and sources which demonstrates an excellent understanding. Identifies links between separate themes. Identifies several appropriate sources.

A good grasp of relevant theories, concepts, and sources covered on the module. Identifies a range of appropriate sources. Evidence of engagement with some other sources.

Reasonable grasp of relevant theories, concepts, and sources covered on the module but lacks some detail and might display minor errors. Engages with key readings but not in depth. Relatively little engagement with other sources.

Insufficient engagement with relevant theories, concepts, and sources covered on the module. Significant errors and gaps in knowledge and understanding. Relies on some poor quality sources. Shows little understanding of wider theoretical context.

Poor grasp of relevant theories, concepts, and sources covered on the module. Little to no use of appropriate sources. Significant errors and gaps in knowledge and understanding.

Depth of critical analysis and evaluation

30% Identifies main theoretical points and arguments, along with underlying assumptions. Subjects texts and arguments to confident, detailed analysis and evaluation.

Identifies main theoretical points and arguments. Subjects them to careful analysis and evaluation.

Identifies some important theoretical points and arguments but analysis and evaluation lack depth. Likely to be too descriptive.

Neglects some important points or arguments. Analysis or evaluation is largely absent or incoherent. Almost entirely descriptive.

Purely descriptive writing or with no comprehensible attempt at relevant analysis or evaluation.

Clarity of argument

10% Points made in the review are argued for persuasively, and presented clearly and logically, with excellent evidence and justification provided.

Argumentation is mostly clear, with appropriate evidence and justification provided.

Argumentation sometimes weak or unclear. Evidence and justification not always provided.

Points made are not supported with sufficient evidence and justification and/or is unclear.

Little to no argumentation. Points made are irrelevant, entirely without evidence or justification.

Logic and clarity of Structure

20% Carefully planned. Logical structure allows argument to develop effectively. Writing demonstrates excellent signposting.

Well-planned.

Structure is clear and effective. Writing demonstrates good signposting.

Evidence of limited planning. Structure is reasonably clear but not always effective. Writing uses some signposting.

Appears unplanned. Structure is unclear and often lacks logic. Writing uses very little signposting.

Structure is haphazard, illogical, or absent. Writing does not use signposting.

Quality of writing (grammar, punctuation) and referencing

20% Very few errors. Style is clear and engaging. Sentence structure is excellent. Referencing and bibliography are thorough and accurate. Quotes and paraphrased material are well incorporated into the text.

Few errors of grammar or punctuation. Writing is clear and easy to follow. Sentence structure is very good. Referencing and bibliography are thorough and mostly accurate. Quotes and paraphrased material are mostly well incorporated into the text.

Some errors of grammar or punctuation. Writing occasionally lacks clarity. Sentence structure is sometimes incorrect. Referencing and bibliography might not be accurate or sufficiently thorough. Quotes and paraphrased material are not always well incorporated.

Consistent and serious errors of grammar or punctuation. Writing is hard to follow. Referencing and bibliography are mostly inaccurate or inadequate. Quotes and paraphrased material are not well incorporated into the text.

Consistent and serious errors of grammar or punctuation which make the essay hard to understand. Referencing and bibliography are absent, inadequate, and/or inaccurate. If plagiarised material is in evidence, this will be reported to the Student Regulations Team.