WRT 205/Spring 2016                                                                                  Grading Rubric: Unit III NYTs Magazine

 

[1]  How well does the title provocatively focus the reader’s attention, as well as the lede? Is it thoughtful, creative, clever? Does it lead the reader into the text and provide some insight into the issue?

The purpose of the title is to grab a person’s attention in order to attract them to the article. I think my title does a good job doing that because all people want answers to their problems and I proposed a solution to a problem that affects all people.

 

[2]  How well does the introductory section of the article invite the reader into the paper, as well as offer up exigency?  How does it locate a problem or controversy within a context that provides background and rationale?

The introduction starts by asking a question assuming the reader already was wondering. I then go on to explain what nuclear energy is. I started with this because it is the basis of the solution so I provided it for some background. I then proceeded to ask another question about the energy that was meant to provide the problem and then briefly provide an overview of the solution before I went into more detail as the article went on.

 

[3] How well does the writer offer up a strong ‘idea’ that requires analysis to support and evolve it, as well as offers some point about the significance of evidence that would not have been immediately obvious to readers.?

The basis of the entire article involves a very complicated and technical process so it must be explained. It is something that most people aren’t aware of so it needs to be put into terms so the non-technical readers can understand it.

 

[4] How well does the writer show clarity of thought; uniqueness of presentation; evidence of style; and historicized topics?

I’m not sure how I unique or stylish I was but my intention of the article was to present it as if I was having a conversation with the reader and I was answering the questions that they were asking.

 

[5]  How well does the writer recognize that a NYTs Magazine audience will challenge ideas that are overgeneralized or underdeveloped or poorly explained? (that is, did the writer avoid cliché and vagueness or address points/issues readers are likely to have?)  How well did the writer decide about how to develop, sequence, and organize material?

The topic is very controversial because of its past so I needed to provide proof that it can be the answer to a problem by making the proof about things that people care about, such as economics and safety.

 

[6]  How well does the writer research a controversy, develop a persuasive stance, utilize research about the topic,  and join the ‘debate’ by making an argument of importance?

I took a strong stance by claiming that nuclear energy is the answer as long as people embrace it and develop it. I provided details such as the economics and safety in order to relate with the reader and be more persuasive.

 

 

[7]  How well does the writer meet or exceed research expectations of assignment requirements (6 appropriate secondary sources, 1 visual source, (or more) and primary research? ).

I did extensive research into my topic and this is shown in the amount of evidence I provided. The topic is not a basic one so I needed a strong understanding from a variety of sources if I want to persuade my audience to share my view.

 

 

[8]  How well does the writer integrate secondary and primary sources (that support and complicate the topic) effectively into the text, introducing and contextualizing them, and “conversing” (i.e. no drop-quoting) in ways that deepen and complicate the analysis?

I used my sources as a way to simply prove that I wasn’t making stuff up and that real, highly educated people have proven time and time again that the view I have is a more common view than most people realize. The audience just needs to accept it.

 

[9 How well does the writer persuade an audience to consider claims made from a particular position of authority on which you have built your research?  How strong and effective is the writer’s use of rhetorical tools (ethos, logos, pathos)?

I used questions as titles as my article progressed as a way to direct all of the information that I obtained towards a specific question. It allowed me to craft my paragraph in a way that wasn’t repetitive and so it also answered any potential questions the audience may have.

 

 

[10] How well does the writer select appropriate, interesting, revealing visual?  Has the writer placed a visual strategically in the essay and provided relevant commentary on and/or analysis of them?  Do the visuals contribute to the essay in meaningful ways (i.e. would the essay be affected if the writer took the visual away)?

I used a nice picture of a power plant as a way to make the plant seem more safe. I provided reasons why they are safe but I included the picture in order to allow people to visualize a safe plant. I also used a graph to back up some of the arguments that I was making and I was hoping that by showing the proof, more people would believe it.

 

 

[11] How well does the writer show development of final article using various drafts, in-class peer editing and workshops, and/or teacher comments?

I changed the order of my paragraphs a few times in accordance with the recommendation of my class mate who proof read and edited for me. I believe that he helped me tremendously to make my article flow and be more persuasive and casual.

 

[12]  How well does the writer use hyperlinks—are they effective/appropriate?

I used hyperlinks on a couple important claims I was making because without the claims, my argument wouldn’t stand and I wanted people to be able to physically see why I was making those claims.

 

[13]  How well did the writer edit for grammar, style, and usage effectively? Does the writer’s attention to sentence level issues help him/her establish authority or credibility on the issue?

I tried to stay away from big words and I tried to use words that I would normally use in everyday conversation so that I could continue my goal to make the article seem like a conversation between me and my audience. I of course had to use some words that I wouldn’t normally use because the topic was complex and there was no way to better explain it without some of the phrases and terms that I used.