CAT 1 Evaluation Rubric: Wikipedia-Style Entry (Paraphrase)

An “A” Wikipedia entry demonstrates a nuanced and comprehensive understanding of Carr’s argument in the assigned chapter.  Each of the main claims made in the chapter is addressed and proportionately developed.  The writer forges incisive links between the evidence and sources Carr uses, Carr’s claims, and the writer’s own summary.  Additionally, “A” entries contextualize the summary of the chapter within the greater significance of Carr’s work and make a well-documented claim about its influence on public opinion.  The outside sources are relevant, reliable, aptly placed, and help support the writer’s claims. The writer maintains a neutral point of view and follows the organizational conventions common to Wikipedia entries. The language of the entry is exceptionally well crafted and clear. Words are used with economy and precision. Sentence structures are artfully used for specific purposes: simple declarative sentences may be used to emphasize general points, for example, while syntactically complex sentences may be used to articulate logical relationships. The entry has been carefully edited and is virtually free of errors in grammar, spelling or usage.

A “B” Wikipedia entry demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of Carr’s argument in the assigned chapter.  Each of the main claims made in the chapter is addressed, but some may be given more attention than others. The writer summarizes Carr’s use of evidence and sources and explains how these sources connect to the chapter’s claims. Additionally, “A” entries contextualize the summary of the chapter within the greater significance of Carr’s work and make a well-documented claim about its influence on public opinion. Outside sources are well chosen and carefully integrated into the entry. The writer maintains a neutral point of view and follows the organizational conventions common to Wikipedia entries. The language of the entry is clear but may be either overly complex or too simple for the task. However, the paper has been carefully edited and has very few errors in grammar, spelling or usage. There may be a few mechanical difficulties or stylistic problems (which/that use, split infinitives, dangling modifiers, etc.), and the writer may make occasional problematic word choices or syntax errors.  

A “C” Wikipedia entry demonstrates an accurate understanding of Carr’s argument in the assigned chapter. Not all of Carr’s main claims may be addressed, or one may be addressed at the expense of others. The writer identifies Carr’s evidence and sources and makes a claim about the greater significance of Carr’s work and its influence on public opinion. The relevance and reliability of the outside sources may be unclear or they may be used vaguely. The writer may occasionally struggle with maintaining a neutral point of view or with following the organizational conventions common to Wikipedia entries (relying instead on the organization of a traditional academic essay or occasionally struggling with coherence within and between parts of the entry).  The language is clear and easy to read, but may be characterized by more frequent wordiness, unclear or awkward sentences, imprecise use of words, and some distracting grammatical errors (wrong verb tense, pronoun agreement, singular/plural errors, article use, preposition use, comma splice, etc.).

A “D” Wikipedia entry must convince the reader that the author has understood some elements of Carr’s argument. However, the summary may not be thorough or accurate enough to be comprehensible to someone unfamiliar with Carr’s work. There is some discussion of Carr’s sources and evidence, though the relevance may be unclear. There is also some attempt at incorporating outside sources, but the quality, relevance, or placement may be questionable. The writer may depart from a neutral point of view or digress from one topic to another without developing ideas or terms. These assignments are often characterized by major grammatical or proofreading errors that indicate problems with Standard Written English (sentence construction, sentence fragments, etc.). The language may also be frequently weakened by colloquialisms, clich├ęs, and hyperbolic statements or repeated inexact word choices.

An “F” Wikipedia entry fails to meet any or all of the areas of competence outlined above.