University of Wisconsin–Madison

Grading Checklists for a Sequenced Assignment in Engineering

Dr. Elise Gold (Engineering)

Paper 2: Proposal/Annotated Bibliography

 AUTHOR: ____________________________________

Below you will find the various elements on which your paper will be evaluated. The Y (Yes), S (Somewhat), or N (No) by each item indicates how well you have done with each element. Items specifically needing work may be underlined or highlighted. Along with a grade, an overall evaluation follows, with a few major suggestions for improvement.


Cover Letter

____ explains purpose, focus, audience, use of logos, pathos, ethos

____ discusses what’s working best and worst in draft

____ discusses what’s new for the writer

____ describes substantive revisions made between drafts

____ uses appropriate tone



____ accurately reflects paper

____ is catchy



____ grabs reader’s attention

____ sets stage and tone for paper

____ presents good research focus question, conveys significance of topic, previews controversy/debate


Thesis/Concluding Statement

____ has effective specific thesis/concluding statement



____ effectively conveys why research topic is worth investigating

____ discusses major topic areas well as personal interest, interest to class, synopsis of opinion, research plan

____ avoids arguing a position to survey range of views

____ provides good supportive evidence and details, using sources, and discusses their significance rather than merely reports them

____ avoids redundancy in points, examples, etc.



____ uses good organizational strategies (follows through on proposal structure, organizes section discussions, especially opinions, well)

____ has unified paragraphs with effective topic sentences

____ has clear logic/coherence within/between paragraphs/sections; uses effective transitions (not mechanical) between/within paragraphs



____ recaps proposal effectively without repeating introduction

____ is interesting and places issue in large context

____ leaves reader with lasting impression about importance of research topic



____ clearly identifies audiences and their knowledge, values, and needs; uses appeals to logos, pathos, and ethos well.



Selection/Use/Citation of Sources and Annotated Bibliography

____ has adequate number of well selected sources (have currency, depth, range of views, credibility)

____ uses sources well to build/support argument not over-relying on them to form a pastiche; includes good, well-
         incorporated quotations, paraphrases, and summaries without plagiarism or inaccuracies

____ provides correct APA in-text citations avoiding problems like info attributed to wrong source, info listed but no citation,
         incorrect page cited, no quotation marks around a direct quotation, etc.

____ includes full, correct APA references to sources at end of paper

____ has clear and developed annotations that summarize, evaluate the bias, and explain sources’ usefulness



____ employs variety in sentence structure and length

____ achieves clarity and economy of language by avoiding wordiness, word choice problems, passive voice, nominalizations, jargon and technical language, clichés

____ has appropriate and consistent tone



____ has relatively few problems with punctuation, grammar, spelling; has proofread carefully



_____ follows manuscript guidelines well (i.e., for title, spacing, typeface, pagination, headings for proposal format, etc.)



_____ demonstrates good/excellent substantive revision between drafts on various levels—thesis and subordinate ideas, development and support, organization and logic, style and mechanics



GRADE: _________         (Points lost for late and/or incomplete rough draft or final draft, missing cover letter, missing/incomplete mechanics checklist; annotated bibliography, in-text citations, and/or reference list missing or incomplete; copies of sources missing, not highlighted, or not cross-referenced; sources used inaccurately, evidence of plagiarism? ________ )                       







_____ provided well developed, substantive reviews of peers’ writing

_____ identified critical areas to work (higher-level writing issues like thesis, organization, support, development, etc., rather  than lower-level writing issues like style, mechanics, proofreading)

_____ included specific suggestions for improvement

_____ included careful marginal comments

_____ addressed peers directly with appropriate tone

_____ provided positive as well as constructive feedback



GRADE: _________  (Points lost for late or missing first draft, for not participating in peer review workshops?_____