| Heading & paper format | | Paper includes heading of Name, A#, USU 3330-SEC, Assignment Name, Assignment Date in a single line across the top of the page. Paper is single-spaced, in standard font size and type 1.0 pts | Paper deviates from or is missing one or more of these guidelines 0.0 pts |
| 1.0 pts |
| Section headings | | Headings are included. No other text from the prompts is included 5.0 pts | Headings are mostly correct (1-2 minor errors) 3.0 pts | Headings are incorrect or missing 0.0 pts |
| 5.0 pts |
| Part 1: Review | | Review is thoughtful, specific, and of high quality. It explains what you liked best and least, notes anything from the film you found appealing or distracting, and includes a statement of whether or not you would recommend this film to others 20.0 pts | Response meets most of the criteria. Response is average 16.0 pts | Response meets some of the criteria. Response is below average 12.0 pts | Response ignores the prompt or is missing 0.0 pts |
| 20.0 pts |
| Part 2: Character name | | Response names either Don John or Dogberry 10.0 pts | Response is vague in referencing or does not provide the name of either Don John or Dogberry 0.0 pts |
| 10.0 pts |
| Part 2: Character examination | | Comparison of the character in the text with his portrayal in the film is thoughtful, specific, and of high quality. Response notes specific ways the film added dimension to his character. Response includes analysis of the character's clothing, props, and settings in the film 15.0 pts | Response meets most of the criteria. Response is average 12.0 pts | Response meets some of the criteria. Response is below averag 8.0 pts | Response ignores the prompt or is missing 0.0 pts |
| 15.0 pts |
| Part 3a: Film quality | | Response names either motion, point of view, or transition. Response is thoughtful and specific in discussing the film's use of this quality 8.0 pts | Response names one of the qualities. Discussion of the film's use of this quality is adequate. Response is average 6.0 pts | Response is vague in naming and/or discussing a film quality. Response is below average 4.0 pts | Review ignores the prompt or is missing 0.0 pts |
| 8.0 pts |
| Part 3a: Film vs stage | | Response names specific ways this film production varies from what would be possible in a stage production. Response is thoughtful, specific, and of high quality 8.0 pts | Response discusses general differences between film and stage, but lacks specificity. Response is average 6.0 pts | Response is vague, sparse, or otherwise lacking. Response is below average 4.0 pts | Response ignores the prompt or is missing 0.0 pts |
| 8.0 pts |
| Part 3b: Review | | Review is thoughtful, specific, and of high quality. Review includes a statement of whether or not the film's portrayal of these two scenes was effective and an explanation of why it was or was not effective 15.0 pts | Response meets most of the criteria. Review is average 12.0 pts | Response meets some of the criteria. Response is below average 6.0 pts | Response ignores the prompt or is missing 0.0 pts |
| 15.0 pts |
| Works cited | | Works cited includes the citation for one newspaper film review (from one of the approved newspapers) 8.0 pts | Works cited does not include the citation for one newspaper film review or review is not from an approved newspaper 0.0 pts |
| 8.0 pts |
| Works cited format | | Works cited is formatted correctly. Web citations include the URL. 5.0 pts | Works cited contains 1-2 errors 3.0 pts | Works cited contains 3 or more errors 0.0 pts |
| 5.0 pts |
| Spelling/grammar | | Minimal (1-2) errors 5.0 pts | A few (3-5) errors 3.0 pts | Many (6+) errors 0.0 pts |
| 5.0 pts |
| Total Points: 100.0 |
