Writer: Student 1


Rubric for Project A: Comparison of Popular and Academic Sources








  • Provides a general introduction to the topic that is the subject of the author’s articles.
  • Introduces the two different articles to be compared, e.g., identifies the authors and article titles and provides some background, previews their main points and basic assumptions.
  • Includes a thesis statement that summarizes the conclusion of the comparison (how are these articles similar? how are they different?).
  • Thesis statement is SCAPy (specific, comprehensive, analytical, and provable)


Outstanding lead & flow to thesis, if only perhaps a bit too long.




Analysis (body of the paper)

  • Describes the basic approach of each author: explains the author’s primary claim and line of reasoning and identifies his or her basic stance on the topic.
  • Organizes the comparison in “blocks” or point-by-point; in either case clearly highlighting points of comparison and contrast.
  • Topic sentences are SAPy (specific, analytical, and provable)
  • Uses specific examples from the articles (brief summaries, paraphrases, direct quotes) to illustrate these assumptions and comparisons.


Only one or two of your claims are less-than-specific





  • Reiterates comparison claim.
  • Reflects on what the similarities and differences reveal about the distinctive features of academic writing.
  • Reflects more generally on the topic. Suggests directions for further discussion.

An outstanding conclusion





Overall presentation

  • Evidence is well documented, following MLA format for in-text citations and reference list.
  • Paper reads smoothly and logically.
  • Grammar, spelling, and mechanics are correctly applied.

Quotes v. underline





Grade & Comments:


Lesley, a truly outstanding paper!  I really appreciate your gift for insightful rhetorical analysis, writing style, witty voice, and use of evidence.  You certainly show the ability to not only write with sophistication, but you also exhibit  remarkable higher-order thinking.  I especially appreciated where you took time to investigate exceptions to obvious notions (for instance your use of Dr. Hwang).  I only challenge you in the error analysis log to do a bit more with Steinem—use what you have learned in terms of rhetorical analysis for Project B & apply to Steinem (think: appeals to logic, red herring, what she may exclude, etc.); although it is outside the dictates of this assignment, I want to challenge you to work with these higher-order concepts some more.  Finally, as I reiterated throughout my commentary, I thought the way you unified your observations under “advice for today’s student” weakened your strong analysis.  Grade: A 95%.