RESERVED FOR HIFSA

ARCH 3230: ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY II Term Paper Rubric PART OF PAPER/OUTCOME Excellent: 15-11 Points Competent:10 – 6 Points Emerging: 5 – 0 Points BUILDING DESCRIPTION (5 Pts) Written description of the building your paper analyzes. This must include the composition, the exterior façade articulation, the plan layout, and the interior wall articulation. This description should be accompanied by photographs (2-3, including a plan).

Complete and accurate description. Objective language. Reader can visualize this building correctly. (5 Points)

Not totally complete and in places not accurate. Reader needs photographs to complete the visualization. (3 Points)

Sloppy and incomplete description. Reader cannot form a visual image of the building in his/her mind. (1 Point)

MAIN TOPIC/THESIS (2 Points) This is the scholalry interpretation or analysis you have gotton from the text you summarized in the 2nd step of this paper assignment.

Succinct, specific, and clear summary. Reader knows perfectly what the text is about. (2 Points)

Not clear enough, so that reader needs to read twice and bring his/her own expertise to understand the topic. (1 Point)

Confusing and superficial summary. Reader is at a loss to understand. (0.5 Points)

CRITIQUE (5 Points) This is your personal evaluation of the scholarly text’s analysis. Explain the method of argumentation and give your personal critique of the outcome of this analysis.

Convinding analysis and critique. (5 Points)

Not immediately clear what the text is about. Reader needs to consult other texts to understand problem. (4 Points)

Writer’s view is not communicated clearly. (2 Points)

FORMAT OF PAPER (3 Points) Use stimulating and conversational language; correct grammar and syntax; proper use of architectural terminology; logical and rational sequence of the parts of the paper; and appropriate presentation with illustrations, foot/endnotes, title page, and bibliography.

Captivating and elegant writing style; arguments and support are provided in a logical order that makes it easy and interesting to follow the author’s train of thought and a pleasure to read. Excellent and pleasing presentation. (3 Points)

Clear but not sophisticated writing style; arguments and support are not always relevant or not enough context is provided. Errors in format. (2 Points)

Writing style is problematic and many of the support details or arguments are not clearly or logically stated, distracting the reader and making the paper seem very confusing. No evidence of format. (1.5 Point)