Paper Rubric – Nathan Michalewicz

Criteria	4 points	3 points	2 points	1 point	0 points
Meets minimum expectations¹	Meets Expectations	N/A	N/A	N/A	Does not Meet one or more of the expectations
Problem & Argument	The primary problem/question is clearly articulated. The main argument/thesis is stated clearly, the thesis is directly related to the problem, and it answers/solves the question/problem. These problem and argument drive the analysis throughout.	There is a clearly stated problem and a clearly stated argument, but it is not easy to follow how they carry throughout the paper through the various methods and analysis.	There is a clear problem and argument, but they do not align together appropriately, but one they carry throughout the paper through	There is a clear problem and argument, but they do not align together. It is not clear how the argument solves the problem, and it is not clear that they drive the analysis of the paper.	There is no clear argument or question articulated.
Data Description	The data description is clear, and it is clear how the data is manipulated, why it was, and how that will help solve the problem.	The data description is clear and concise, but why and how the data was manipulated or how it will be help solve the problem is not clear.	The data is described but not particularly clearly. Moreover, it is not entirely clear how and why the data manipulation will help solve the paper’s primary problem.	The data description does little to explain why or how the data was chosen, organized, or manipulated.	Data and its manipulation is not described.
Methods Section	The methods used to answer the problem are clearly articulated, and they align appropriately to the problem. The section indicates why those methods were chosen and how their use helps to solve the main problem.	The methods described in the paper are articulated and align appropriately to the issue at hand, but why and how they do so are not clearly articulated.	The methods are described, but they do now clearly align appropriately to solve the problem. Why they are used and how they will solve the problem is not fully articulated.	The methods are discussed but not very well. It is not clear entirely what the plan for the analysis is.	No Methods are described.
Significance	The paper indicates the significance of the project and what is at stake, articulating throughout why the analysis matters.	The significance is discussed and clearly articulated but it does not connect entirely with the rest of the paper.	The significance of the project is discussed but its connection to the problem/argument/methods is poorly understood and articulated.	The significance of the project is poorly understood and poorly articulated.	No significance is discussed.
Visualizations	Visualizations are clear, easy to understand, interpreted in the text in a way that flows with the argument, an easy to understand how they clarify and support the argument.	Visualizations do all but one of the list for full credit.	Visualizations are not particularly clear to understand, or it is not clear how they support the argument.	There are not enough visualizations, or it is not entirely clear why they are there.	There are no visualizations.
Persuasion	The argument and the general argumentation, use of methods, and analysis are very persuasive in proving the thesis.	The general argumentation, use of methods, and analysis are persuasive, but there are some lapses in logic, or the analysis does not align particularly well with the methods, or the connection between the methods and the argument is lacking.	The general argumentation, use of methods, and analysis is somewhat persuasive, but there are significant leaps in logic or problems in the alignment between methods, analysis, and argument.	The connection between the various pieces of the paper do not clearly align to make a cohesive whole, limiting the persuasion.	The paper is not persuasive at all.

Footnotes

Does the paper meet the minimum expectations established in the assignment overview.↩︎