PROJECT BY	REVIEWER 1	REVIEWER 2	REVIEWER 3	REVIEWER 4	REVIEWER 5
DRAGONFLY P, DOC, and O	DOG	PANTHER	BUTTERFLY	DOLPHIN	MANTA RAY
PANDA S, C, W	DOG	PANTHER	BUTTERFLY	DOLPHIN	MANTA RAY
MANTA RAYT, O, W	DOG	BEAR	ELEPHANT	DOLPHIN	MANTA RAY
WH. DOE W, T	DOG	BEAR	ELEPHANT	WILD BOAR	MANTA RAY
SEA TURTLE Doc, C, + S	DOG	BEAR	ELEPHANT	WILD BOAR	PANDA
WILD BOAR PR, C, W	SCR. OWL	BEAR	ELEPHANT	SEA TURTLE	PANDA
DOLPHIN W, DOC, C	SCR. OWL	BLACK DEER	ELEPHANT	WILD BOAR	PANDA
S. S. TURTLE W, C, and O	SCR. OWL	BLACK DEER	SQUIRREL	WILD BOAR	PANDA
SQUIRREL T, O, + W	SCR. OWL	BLACK DEER	S. S. TURTLE	WILD BOAR	PANDA
ELEPHANT P,W,C	SCR. OWL	BLACK DEER	SQUIRREL	SEA TURTLE	DRAGONFLY
BUTTERFLY T, PR	MOUSE	BLACK DEER	SQUIRREL	SEA TURTLE	DRAGONFLY
LIONT, W, C	MOUSE	BUTTERFLY	SQUIRREL	SEA TURTLE	DRAGONFLY
BLACK DEER PR, W, and O	MOUSE	LION	SQUIRREL	SEA TURTLE	DRAGONFLY
HOOT OWL C, PR, W	MOUSE	LION	S. S. TURTLE	DOE	DRAGONFLY
BLACK BEAR C, S, T	MOUSE	LION	S. S. TURTLE	DOE	HOOT OWL
B. PANTHER DOC, V, and S	BEAR	LION	S. S. TURTLE	DOE	HOOT OWL
DEER MOUSE DOC, V, W	PANTHER	LION	S. S. TURTLE	DOE	HOOT OWL
SCR. OWL V, S, + W	PANTHER	BUTTERFLY	DOLPHIN	DOE	HOOT OWL
DOG W, PR, and S	PANTHER	BUTTERFLY	DOLPHIN	MANTA RAY	HOOT OWL

T= 1. UNITY, COHERENCE, AND FLOW, O= 2. Organization and Logical Order of the Prose, S= 3. Specificity, v =4. Integration of Verbal and Visual Rhetoric, PR  =  5.Proofreading, DOC = 6. Documentation, PR  = 7. Punctuation, W = 8. Word choice, C = 9. Conciseness

---

OUR NINE CRITERIA

---

1. UNITY, COHERENCE, AND FLOW

 

How you say something affects what you say because the medium IS the message, form and content are inseparable. (See your course anthology, especially: “COMPOSITION”; "COHERENCE, sign of an ‘A’ paper"; "TRANSITIONAL EXPRESSIONS"; "Writing Well is Thinking Well"; and "Undergrad Writing Center." Of course, also see your Penguin Handbook on flow, organization, transitions, etc.)

Hence, grades for unity include subtracting for all errors and infelicities in the prose that stop the flow and make the reader pause, however briefly, to try to figure out what you are trying to say. Hence, all projects must have logical transitions between paragraphs and sentences as well as structural unity and progression of thought throughout. Failures of connection between paragraphs and sentences in the hard copy will be indicated by an inverted V (indicating something needs to be inserted) and points subtracted accordingly.

In addition to identifying every place in the prose that makes you pause, however briefly, consider these questions.

• Did the writing flow smoothly so you could follow the main argument?
• Can you find the main points?
• Are the transitions from one point to the next harsh, or do they transition naturally?
• Is the order developed and sustained within and across paragraphs using transitional devices?
• Is the introduction inviting?
• Is the conclusion satisfying?
• Do paragraphs deal with one subject?

• ---

  RATINGS

7. Perfect flow, with evident or subtle transitions wherever needed.

6. Very good: almost perfect flow with evidence of transitions.

5. Good: fairly good flow, with some evidence of transitions, with perhaps one obvious interruption.

4. Average: average flow with some interruptions, with or without attempts at transitions.

3. Poor: poor flow, with quite a few interruptions, with or without attempts at transitions.

2. Very poor: Minimal control, with few if any attempts at transitions, that is, very poor flow, with many interruptions.

1. Disastrous: No apparent control, no attempt at transitions in the prose, that is, almost no flow.

---

2. Organization and Logical Order of the Prose,

 

Is the organization clear from the start and a logical order of sequence maintained?

7. Apparently perfect organization and logical order.

6. Very good: Effective organization and fairly logical order.

5. Good: Functional organization and fairly logical order.

4. Average: Consistent organization and some logical order, with some interruptions.

3. Poor : Confused arrangement and inconsistent logical order, with quite a few interruptions.

2. Very poor: Minimal control and little logical order, with many interruptions.

1. Disastrous: No apparent control, no logical order, no apparent organization.

---

3. Specificity and "Concreteness": Examples, Verbal Images, Metaphors, Similes, Evidence, Supporting Details

 

Does the essay move easily between general and specific? Are claims supported by specific, detailed evidence and/or examples? Does concrete language anchor the essay, engaging the senses, and keeping it from becoming too vague? Are the basic stories and/or emotions behind the essay shown or demonstrated in personal, specific, concrete examples, images, metaphors, similes, and/or supporting sensory details that enable us to experience the world through another’s perspective?

See "Freshness" and the section on images and metaphors in the article, "Diction and Conciseness," in your anthology.

7. Excellent: Approaches the quality of a professional, perhaps even a great writer. The essay moves easily between general and specific. All claims are supported by specific, detailed evidence and/or examples. Concrete language anchors the essay, engages the five senses, and keeps it from becoming too vague. Instead of vague abstractions the basic stories and/or emotions behind the essay are shown or demonstrated in personal, specific, concrete examples, images, metaphors, similes, and/or supporting sensory details that enable us to experience the world through another’s perspective.

6. Very Good: Approaches the quality of an excellent amateur writer. The essay moves fairly easily between general and specific. Almost all claims are supported by specific, detailed evidence and/or examples. Concrete language usually anchors the essay, engages the five senses, and keeps it from becoming too vague. Instead of vague abstractions the basic stories and/or emotions behind the essay are often shown or demonstrated in personal, specific, concrete examples, images, metaphors, similes, and/or supporting sensory details that enable us to experience the world through another’s perspective.

5. Good: Approaches the quality of an excellent college writer. Most of the time, the essay moves fairly easily between general and specific. All but two or three claims are supported by specific, detailed evidence and/or examples. Concrete language anchors most of the essay, engages the five senses, and keeps it from becoming too vague. Instead of vague abstractions the basic stories and/or emotions behind the essay are at times shown or demonstrated in personal, specific, concrete examples, images, metaphors, similes, and/or supporting sensory details that enable us to experience the world through another’s perspective.

4. Average: Approaches the quality of an excellent high school writer. Some of the time, the essay moves fairly easily between general and specific. All but two or three claims are supported by specific, detailed evidence and/or examples. Concrete language anchors some of the essay, engages the five senses, and keeps it from becoming too vague. Once or twice instead of vague abstractions the basic stories and/or emotions behind the essay are at times shown or demonstrated in personal, specific, concrete examples, images, metaphors, similes, and/or supporting sensory details that enable us to experience the world through another’s perspective.

3. Poor: Approaches the quality of a high school writer. The essay rarely moves easily between general and specific. Most of the claims are not supported by specific, detailed evidence and/or examples. Concrete language anchors a little of the essay but does not keep it from becoming too vague at times. Vague abstractions abound, hiding the basic stories and/or emotions behind the essay. There is little that enables us to experience the world through another’s perspective.

2. Very Poor: Approaches the quality of a functional illiterate. The essay does not move between general and specific. The claims are not supported by specific, detailed evidence and/or examples. There is no concrete language. Vague abstractions abound, hiding the basic stories and/or emotions behind the essay, if there are any. There is nothing that enables us to experience the world through another’s perspective.

1. Disastrous: The language is so vague that it is apparent that the writer, as well as the reader, doesn’t know what s/he is talking about.

---

4. Integration of Verbal and Visual Rhetoric,

 

• IS THE ORGANIZATION OF THE VISUAL AND VERBAL RHETORIC CLEAR?
• ARE THE IMAGES/MULTIMEDIA ESSENTIAL TO THE ESSAY OR NOT?
• ARE THE IMAGES/MULTIMEDIA DISCUSSED, OR AT LEAST REFERRED TO, IN THE TEXT?
• ARE THE IMAGES/MULTIMEDIA PLACED NEXT TO THE WORDS THAT CONNECT TO THEM?

7. Excellent: Sophisticated arrangement of VERBAL AND MULTIMEDIA. MULTIMEDIA includes not only still images but also movies, animated images, sound, Flash, or other special effects, but all are essential to the essay. All are placed in the text right next to the words that discuss or refer to them. The words clearly connect the multimedia to the argument and keep the flow of the prose as well as the multimedia flowing well.

6. Very good: Effective arrangement of VERBAL AND VISUAL/MULTIMEDIA. MULTIMEDIA includes not only still images but at least one other media, but all are essential to the essay. All are placed in the text right next to the words that discuss or refer to them. The words connect the multimedia to the argument fairly well and sustain the flow of the prose.

5. Good: Functional arrangement of WORDS AND PICTURES. All images are placed in the text right next to the words that discuss or refer to them. The words connect the images to the argument fairly well.

4. Average: Consistent arrangement of WORDS AND PICTURES. Allor all but one of images are placed in the text right next to the words that discuss or refer to them. The words connect the images to the argument somewhat.

3. Poor : Confused or inconsistent arrangement of WORDS AND PICTURES. Images are not usually placed in the text right next to the words that discuss or refer to them.

2. Very poor: Minimal control of PICTURES in relation to the rest of the essay. Images are not usually discussed in the text.

1. Disastrous: No apparent logic to the arrangement of VERBAL AND VISUAL/MULTIMEDIA or no VISUAL/MULTIMEDIA.

---

5.Proofreading: Typos, Spelling, and Grammar errors,

 

Has the author re-read the essay carefully enough to catch basic proofreading errors, such as typos and missing words?

Are there any grammatical or spelling errors?

7 There are no apparent grammar, spelling, or proofreading errors.

6 There are one or two minor errors, but the prose flows fairly well.

5 There are two or three minor errors, but the prose moves along well enough.

4 There are a number of errors that force the reader to hesitate, however briefly, to figure out what the writer intended. There is some doubt as to how much of the assigned reading on spellchecks, and proofreading has been read or understood. In as much as half of the essay the flow would benefit from better proofreading.

3 Apparently not much of the assigned reading on spellchecks and proofreading has been read or understood, forcing the reader often to hesitate, however briefly, to figure out what the writer intended. In as much as two-thirds of the essay the flow would benefit from better proofreading.

2. The author appears often unaware of the appropriate use of grammar, spellchecks,and proofreading, and most of the flow of the essay suffers as a result.

1. The proofreading, and/or spelling, and/or grammar is atrocious and the essay does not flow at all.

6. Documentation,

 

Has the author revealed the sources of his images and quotations? Has the author provided complete information about these sources? Has the author followed the University of Chicago footnote system in each and every detail? (In the website version these will be endnotes, but in the hard copy they must be footnotes.)

7. All the images and quotations are fully documented perfectly according to the University of Chicago documentation system.

6 All the images and quotations are documented according to the University of Chicago documentation system, but there are one or two minor errors.

5 All the images and quotations are documented according to the University of Chicago documentation system, but there are two or three minor errors.

4 Not all the images and quotations are documented according to the University of Chicago documentation system. There is some doubt as to how much of the reading in the handbook on the University of Chicago documentation system has been read or understood. A third or so of the images and/or quotations need better documentation.

3 Apparently not much of reading in the handbook on the University of Chicago documentation system has been read or understood, forcing the reader often to hesitate, however briefly, to figure out what the writer's sources are. Most of the images and/or quotations need better documentation.

2. The author appears unaware of the University of Chicago documentation system.

1. The author appears unaware of the need for documentation.

7. Punctuation,

 

Has the author used punctuation as the traffic signals of the language: telling us to when to slow down, what to notice, when to detour, when to stop? Has the author used punctuation to guide you through the essay without hesitating or stumbling (and thus making you retrace your steps and read a sentence again)? Has the author used punctuation the way a composer uses musical notation to show you how to perform the prose in your mind?

Has the author read and understood the relevant readings in the course anthology (Eats, Shoots, and Leaves) and handbook on punctuation, such as the following? Are the paired bracketing devices - - parentheses, dashes, quotation marks, appositives (paired commas) - -complete? Has the author avoided comma splices? Does the author make good use of colons and semicolons? Does the author know how to use hyphens with compound adjectives and numbers? Does the author know when to use quotation marks and how they work with other forms of punctuation? Does the author know when to use ellipses and when to use brackets instead of parentheses? Has the author read and understand the sections on punctuation in the anthology and in the Penguin handbook covering not only the issues above but also periods, apostrophes, exclamation points, slashes, etc. ?

7 The author has used punctuation like a great composer uses musical notation and as a result the prose flows beautifully. The punctuation appears to be perfect.

6 The punctuation guides the reader effectively, and there are no obvious moments of hesitation or stumbling as a result, but the punctuation could probably work even better if revised.

5 The punctuation is generally effective, but there are one or two places where it could be changed, added, or removed to improve the flow of the essay.

4 There is some doubt as to how much of the assigned reading on punctuation has been read or understood. In as much as half of the essay the flow would benefit from changing, adding, or removing punctuation.

3 .Not much of the assigned reading on punctuation has been read or understood. In as much as two-thirds of the essay the flow would benefit from changing, adding, or removing punctuation.

2. The author appears unaware of the appropriate use of many modes of punctuation, and most of the flow of the essay suffers as a result.

1. The punctuation is atrocious and the essay does not flow at all.

Where can I find out more? See your course anthology:" Eats, Shoots, and Leaves: commas, semicolons "

---

8. Word choice,

 

Paris Review: How much rewriting do you do?

Hemingway:It depends. I rewrote the ending to A Farewell To Arms, the last page of it, thirty-nine times before I was satisfied.

Paris Review: Was there some technical problem there? What was it that stumped you?

Hemingway: Getting the words right

More on Word Choice

Is the best word in the best place throughout this essay? How many words do not seem to be the very best possible choices? Has the author been as specific as possible? Has the author used examples and “word pictures” as needed, that is, “illustrations, analogies, vivid quotations, metaphors, similes” � � � � (Trimble 76)? Does the prose delight the reader with wit, fresh phrases, new insights, fresh images? Has the reader avoided empty abstractions?

See how abstractions are the opposite of what is sought in writing in English courses.

7 The diction is fresh, witty, and very specific. You cannot see anywhere that it could possibly be improved.

6 You cannot see how the diction might be easily improved, but it is not very witty, fresh, or striking.

5 The diction is first-rate but there are one or two words that could be replaced with better ones.

4 The diction is good but there are a number of words and/or one or two sections that might be improved by revision.

3. The diction is adequate but the author does not appear to have taken the time to revise for word choice.

2. The diction is mediocre, boring, at times vague: lots of useless repetition, empty abstractions, passive voice, needlessly protracted sentences, empty intensifiers, expletives and impersonal constructions like “there is” and “it is.”

1. The word choice is so poor that at times it is difficult to tell exactly what the author is trying to say.

Where can I find out more? See your course anthology:"THE OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY, OXFORD REFERENCE ONLINE"; "Diction and Conciseness"

---

9. Conciseness,

 

Is the author diluting the force of his message by using too many words? Or is the author using only as many words as are absolutely necessary, avoiding repetition, redundance, wordiness, unnecessary modifiers, empty intensifiers, unnecessarily long and convoluted sentences?

7. Succinct, powerful prose, undiluted by unnecessary verbiage.

6. Economical prose. No section, no word choice, could be easily revised for conciseness.

5. Fairly concise prose, but various words if not sections suggest there is some redundance or repetition that could cut to increase the conciseness.

4. Adequate prose but some repetition, redundance, wordiness, unnecessary modifiers, empty intensifiers, or unnecessarily long and convoluted sentences and thus about a third of the essaywould benefit clearly from cutting the waste.

3. About half of the essay needs excision of repetition, redundance, wordiness, unnecessary modifiers, empty intensifiers, or unnecessarily long and convoluted sentences.

2. Essay as a whole needs excision of repetition, redundance, wordiness, unnecessary modifiers, empty intensifiers, or unnecessarily long and convoluted sentences.

1. The excess verbiage is so great that some of the meaning of the essay is obscured.

Where can I find out more? See below and your course anthology:"Diction and Concisenes"

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

ADVICE FOR ACHIEVING BETTER CONCISENESS

Adapted from John Trimble’s Writing with Style

by Adam Vramescu

“Most of us write as if we’re paid a dime a word” (53).

HE RESULT IS vague writing (lots of passive voice, needlessly protracted sentences, empty intensifiers, expletives and impersonal constructions like “there is” and “it is”)

Conciseness is saying only as much as you mean to say, avoiding wordiness or repetition.

-----------------------------------

Tests for conciseness:

1. Have you repeated a word a number of times? Could you find synonyms? Cut the word in some instances? Combine sentences so you don’t have to use the word?

2. Have you repeated an idea? Occasionally we write two sentences in a row that say essentially the same thing. Make sure each sentence answers a question posed by the preceding one rather than simply restating it.

-----------------------------------

Tip: Verbs are your best tool to say exactly what you mean, so have you used the clearest (not the fanciest) verb possible?

Sometimes clear verbs already lurk in disguise as nouns.

Ex: “Hamlet’s feeling for his father’s death is grievance.”

Find the lurking verb… How about grievance? Grievance = grieve.

So… “Hamlet grieves his father’s death.” Much simpler!

Eliminating Unnecessary Modifiers (or, the road to Hell is paved with adverbs)

Are you using specific words? What do the following words mean?: very, definitely, extremely, truly, ultimately, honestly, etc. The answer: not a whole lot.

Instead of “the desert is very hot,” why not “the desert is scorching”?

Instead of “I ate the pie quickly,” why not “I devoured the pie”?

Empty intensifiers actually dull the effect of the word! To a reader, “very hot” doesn’t really mean “more than regular-hot.” It reads more like “ very zzzzzzzzz…” So remember to use descriptive language! It’ � � � � s more precise and more fun to use.

Myth: Longer sentences are more intelligent than shorter ones. The truth is that sentences don’t have brains and, as such, can’t be intelligent. But in seriousness, let’s think about this: Are long sentences more refined than shorter sentences? We actually think in longer phrases— � � � � Trimble calls them “ready-made.” He goes on to say that since these phrases have “the added attraction of sounding elegant,” they don’t seem intuitively bad. But!—“This habit of thinking in prefab phrases slowly dulls our sensitivity to words as words” (53). So what’s the harm? Try these bad boys of diction: Wordiness, repetition, cliché.

Fact #1: There’s a shorter way to say it. Keep an eye on your connecting words, especially. Prepositions, conjunctions, and the like. They’re usually hiding something.

Here’s some typical sentence protraction, from WWS: “His bold and brash temper has been replaced by a careful and prudent manner.” Where’s the repetition there? Check the whopping four adjectives. The sentence was “His impetuosity has been replaced by prudence,” still not a gem but not a clunker.

LOOKING AHEAD:

Detailed criteria for your print version here (to be turned into the instructor).

 

---

return to course schedule

Return to Bump Home Page