I need a News Article Review
Criteria Ratings Points Article Appropriateness 4 to >2 pts Advanced An article pertaining to the subject matter of this course was chosen from a reputable source, and was no more than 3 years old. 2 to >1 pts Proficient Article pertained to the subject matter of this course, but the source was of dubious quality. 1 to >0 pts Developing Article did not clearly connect to the subject matter of this course, and/or was of highly questionable reliability or substantially over 3 years old. 0 pts Not Present 4 pts Key Components 8 to >6 pts Advanced A brief summary of the reviewed article was provided, with a link to the online source or legible copy of the article provided at the bottom of the paper; other sections were well organized. 6 to >4 pts Proficient Key components were present, but organization of body of review needed improvement. 4 to >0 pts Developing Review had an underdeveloped or missing summary, had no link to or copy of the source, had poor organization of body of review. 0 pts Not Present 8 pts Article Assessment 8 to >6 pts Advanced The assessment is thorough, showing understanding of the major arguments of the article, assessing its strengths and weaknesses using logical reasoning and Christian ethical standards; supporting quotations and/or resources were used where appropriate. 6 to >4 pts Proficient The assessment was generally strong, but had some weaknesses in the reasoning, or dealt only vaguely with significant problems in the reviewed article.Critical elements of the analysis were sometimes made without adequate support. 4 to >0 pts Developing The assessment contained multiple problems which may include misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the reviewed article, problems with logical reasoning or application of ethics, failure to address significant problems in the article, or lack of supporting resources. 0 pts Not Present 8 pts Principles of Economics Application 8 to >6 pts Advanced Economic ideas as explained in the reading and study materials are clearly integrated into the review in a way that shows comprehension of the key concepts. 6 to >4 pts Proficient Economic ideas as explained in the reading and study materials are applied, but with some misunderstanding of the key concepts. 4 to >0 pts Developing The review makes limited use of economic ideas from the course materials, and/or the application of the concepts reveals substantial misunderstanding of the key concepts. 0 pts Not Present 8 pts News Article Review Grading Rubric | PPOG502_B01_202330 Criteria Ratings Points Grammar, Spelling, Style, APA 6 to >4 pts Advanced Review had only a few minor grammatical and/or spelling errors, using APA format correctly. The paper was written in an academic tone, without use of slang, contractions, or other informalities. 4 to >2 pts Proficient Grammar and spelling were generally good, and the use of APA format displayed few errors. Informalities in the paper were minor and did not distract from the content. 2 to >0 pts Developing Paper had significant grammatical, spelling, or formatting problems, and/or had stylistic problems such as use of slang, contractions, and other informalities or unscholarly tone throughout the paper. 0 pts Not Present 6 pts Length 6 to >4 pts Advanced Between 500 and 700 words. 4 to >2 pts Proficient Somewhat under 500 or over 700 words. 2 to >0 pts Developing Under 400 or over 800 words. 0 pts Not Present 6 pts Total Points: 40 News Article Review Grading Rubric | PPOG502_B01_202330
