Paper has a descriptive title (a mini thesis statement). The intro offers a strong opening that captures a reader’s attention and clearly introduces the movie. Thesis about the article’s effectiveness is clear.

Opening introduces topic but lacks an attention grabbing opening. Title is vague. Thesis could be stronger.

The intro vaguely introduces the topic. A title is missing or generic.  Thesis only give s summary of article.

The introduction doesn’t really match the topic and focus of the rest of the paper. A title and/or thesis is missing

The paper introduces the documentary’s audience and purpose and develops the following: ethos, pathos, logos, and style. Papers offers an analysis of the rhetorical elements, resulting in an interesting essay.

The paper is underdeveloped in one of the key requirements (listed in first box). Analysis could use more development.

The paper is underdeveloped in two of the requirements listed.

Paper has little development in all of the requirements.

Ideas are expressed in a well-organized manner, and paper exhibits sophistication in structure, such as the capacity for making choices about organization that are informed in part by the content.  Transitions help with the flow of the paper.

Ideas are expressed in a manner that reveals a “mechanical” ability to organize ideas by following a model. Transitions are adequate but could be more sophisticated.

Ideas are expressed in a loosely organized fashion. Some information seems misplaced. Transitions are needed throughout the paper.

Ideas are expressed in a disorganized fashion or no organization.

Writing observes the grammatical conventions of standard written English and exhibits sophistication in effective sentence variety. Paper is free from distracting mechanical errors (grammar, spelling, and punct). One or two minor typos exist but are not overly distracting.

Writing generally observes the grammatical conventions of standard written English. Paper has a few distracting mechanical errors.

Writing observes some grammatical conventions. Paper has several distracting mechanical errors and readability problems.

Writing does not observe the grammatical conventions of standard written English.

5

The conclusion shares a thought-provoking ending.

Conclusion sums up the paper, but merely restates information.

The conclusion is vague or simply repeats the thesis.

Conclusion is non-existent or has little to do with the topic.