Excellent                                                  1+ = 100;1 = 93-96; 2+ = 90-92 Good                                                         2 = 86-89;   2- = 83-85; 3+ = 80-82 Average                                                         3 = 76-79;  3- = 73-75; 4+ = 70-72 Needs Much Improvement                         4 = 66-69; 4- = 63-65; 5+ = 60-62 Not Acceptable                                            5 = 50-59; 5- = 40-49; 6 = 20-39
Research Significantly exceeds the required minimum number of sources. Uses at least the minimum number of required sources, with no more than 1/2 from the internet Uses several fewer sources than required, and/or more than 1/2 are from the internet Uses only about 1/2 the number of sources required, and/or most are from the internet Uses only 1 or 2 sources; uses only internet sources
Every parenthetical citation clearly matches to a works cited entry. Very few citations do not clearly match to a works cited entry. Several citations do not clearly match to a works cited entry (including multiple citation problems from 1-2 sources). There is a noticeable pattern of citations which do not match to a works cited entry. It is difficult to match most citations with their respective works cited entries.
All quotes, paraphrases, summaries from sources are clearly documented as borrowed information. 1-2 pieces of borrowed information are not clearly documented. Several pieces of borrowed information are not clearly documented. Large parts of the paper contain undocumented information. Parts of the paper appear to have been downloaded from the internet or copied from 1 or more sources, with no attempt to identify the information as quotations.
MLA Mechanics All of the following formats are correct:  1st page heading; title of paper; page numbering; heading on works cited; double spacing; margins One of the formats is incorrect. 2-3 formats are incorrect. Paper shows numerous formatting errors. Paper shows little or no attempt to follow MLA style formatting.
All parenthetical citations are in correct format. Very few errors in formats of citations. Several errors in formats of citations. A noticeable pattern of errors in formats of citations. Citations do not follow MLA formatting rules.
All Works Cited entries contain all required information and follow MLA rules for order of information, punctuation, and formatting. 1-2 Works Cited entries do not contain all required information OR do not follow MLA rules. Several entries do not contain all required information OR do not follow MLA rules Works Cited entries do not proper indentation.  Works Cited entries are not listed in alphabetical order.
Organization Fully-developed introduction: Effective hook; smooth connection between opening and thesis; effectively incorporates excellent background information. Solid introduction: Clear hook but not especially effective; connection between opening and thesis; provides good background info. Functional introduction:  hook does not communicate a clear idea or image; unclear connection between opening and thesis; provides adequate background info. Weak/underdeveloped introduction:  hook unrelated to paper topic; no connection between opening and thesis' provides little background info. Very weak/missing introduction:  no hook; no background info.
Extremely clear thesis which makes a strong critical judgement about a specific aspect of the topic and gives paper strong structural direction. Clear thesis which makes a critical judgement about a specific aspect of the topic and gives paper general structural direction. Thesis is too general.  Does not make a judgement. Does not identify specific aspect of topic.  Does not give structure to the paper. Thesis does not communicate a clear idea. Thesis is missing or nonsensical.
Main points are stated extremely clearly throughout the paper and directly relate to the thesis. Main points are stated clearly and are related to the thesis. Some main points are not clearly stated or not directly related to the thesis. Main points are not clear or not clearly related to the thesis. Main points are missing or nonsensical.
Each paragraph is a discreet and unified unit of thought, reflected in extremely clear topic and concluding sentences, with supporting details coherently integrated. Each paragraph is a discreet and unified unit of thought, reflected in clear topic and concluding sentences, with supporting details integrated. Paragraphs do not contain  concluding sentences; supporting details may not be coherently integrated. Paragraphs do not contain clear topic sentences. Information is not separated into units of thoughts OR includes random integration of information (goes off topic).
Argument shows sophisticated use of transitions throughout the paper. Transitions are used effectively to connect main points or to establish/connect ideas within main points; may sometimes be awkward Transitions are occasionally missing between ideas. Transitions are often missing. Little or no attempt to show connection between ideas; no transitions between/within paragraphs.
Info. is arranged strategically so it addresses the issues of the paper with extremely clear logic. Info. is arranged clearly and logically addresses the issues. The argument is sometimes unclear or illogical. The argument is often unclear or illogical. Sequence of ideas is very confusing.
Fully-developed conclusion; stays on topic but extends ideas. Conclusion begins to extend ideas, but is underdeveloped. Conclusion effectively summarizes the main points of the paper but does not extend ideas. Conclusion is an underdeveloped summary or introduces info. Not presented in body of the paper. Conclusion is missing, incoherent, or extremely brief.
Ideas & Plenty of evidence to support thesis and main points. Enough evidence to prove thesis. Paper needs more evidence. Evidence is often often takes the form of vague paraphrasing or overly-long quotations, or is repetitive. Plot summary or many overly-long quotations; very few references; erroneous evidence.
Supporting Info. Extremely strong evidence which illuminates the main points of thesis Good evidence which clearly relates to thesis and main points. Examples occasionally do not support thesis or main point. Some evidence unrelated to thesis or main point. Evidence frequently does not relate to thesis or main point.
Ideas are original and opinionated; demonstrates significant insight into the topic. Ideas are clear and express some opinion/point of view; demonstrates insight into the topic. Ideas are mostly clear; fails to develop the significance of insight into the topic. Ideas are functional but seem to be only derived from source info; shows little of writer's original opinions/insight. Ideas are unclear; little or no connection between ideas and supporting evidence.
Commentary consistently demonstrates insight and explores reasons behind surface-level ideas; makes meaningful connections. Insightful commentary; could be more fully developed. Uneven commentary: too general, underdeveloped, lacking in connections or sense of purpose; occasionally not supported by evidence. Commentary often based on speculation rather than evidence.  Commentary is sometimes confusing or illogical. Little or no commentary; does not analyze evidence; very confusing/illogical.
Writer explores the topic critically and reveals in-depth understanding of the topic.  The paper is thought-provoking. Writer explores the topic completely and substantively and reveals a solid understanding of the topic. Writer explores the topic, but not thoroughly.  Demonstrates only basic understanding of the topic. Writer does not stay focused on the topic; demonstrates a limited knowledge or understanding of the topic. Writer misinterprets/does not seem to understand the evidence presented to support the topic.
All main points blend info. from several sources to effectively support ideas. Main points use info from several sources to support ideas. Some main points use info from too few sources to support ideas. Writer depends mainly on 2 or 3 sources throughout the paper, with occasional references used from other sources. Writer consistently uses only 1 or 2 sources throughout the paper
Significant, insightful use of both primary and secondary sources. Good use of both primary and secondary sources. Writer's use of evidence from primary sources is uneven: sometimes too general or insufficient. Writer uses little evidence from primary sources; or little evidence from secondary sources Writer uses only primary or secondary sources.
Writer insightfully and commandingly proves thesis. Writer clearly proves thesis. Thesis is more or less proven. Reader does not feel that the evidence convincingly proves the truth of the thesis. Lack of logical connections between pieces of evidence and/or lack of evidence leave thesis clearly unproven.
Use of Language Powerful, varied, specific vocabulary. Diction thoroughly captures reader's interest through use of precise and appropriate language. Strong vocabulary; clear and appropriate diction; would benefit from more specificity, variety, and/or powerful verbs Functional vocabulary; language is occasionally colloquial/informal; imprecise, simple, lacks variety; many passive verbs; sometimes stilted or wordy. Inaccurate or inappropriate diction; excessive use of passive voice; very simple or very stilted word choice; often wordy or repetitive. Frequently misuses words; limited vocabulary interferes with meaning; very repetitive.
All quotes are integrated seamlessly into the sentences, with effective lead-ins and transitions to commentary. Most quotes are integrated smoothly into the sentenceswith lead-ins and transitions to commentary. Quotes are occasionally awkwardly integrated into the sentences; lead-ins and/or transitions are occasionally missing. Quotes are simply stuck into the writing as separate sentences, without integration. Writer does not use quotes.
Virtually no spelling or punctuation errors. A few spelling/punctuation errors which do not interfere with meaning. A number of spelling/punctuation errors which occasionally interfere with meaning. Many spelling/punctuation errors which frequently interfere with meaning. So many spelling/punctuation errors that the paper is very difficult to read.
Writer demonstrates command of complex and varied sentence structure. Writer demonstrates clear command of language, with some sentence variety. Communicates clearly, but sentence structure lacks variety; occasional awkward sentence structure. Meaning is sometimes unclear; frequently awkward sentence structure; choppy or rambling sentences; does not flow. Meaning is often unclear; mostly awkward sentences.
No fragments, run-ons or comma splices; sentence structure is correct. Very few fragments, run-ons, or comma splices; occasional sentence structure errors. A few fragments, run-ons, or comma splices; several syntax errors. A noticeable pattern of fragments, run-ons, comma splices, or syntax errors. Constant fragments, run-ons, comma splices, or syntax errors.