Talk:Holistic Scoring of Writing

Section formatting, inline citations and other recommendations

• Please add inline citations from reliable independent sources to prove notability and that this is not original research in the Wikipedia sense. A minimum of one reference per paragraph is recommended.
• I will demonstrate the formatting for section headers which automatically generates a table of contents. Please use this.
• Please wikilink terms which are likely to be unfamiliar to the average reader, or explain at first use.

Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:45, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Current use

How widespread is current use? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 09:32, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Check against B-class criteria

1. The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations.

   It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. Any format of inline citation is acceptable: the use of <ref> tags and citation templates such as {{cite web}} is optional.

   Y Appears to be adequately sourced, using appropriate sources, though most references are not freely available online for easy verification. (free access online is nice but not necessary). There are sufficient reliable third party sources to establish notability of the topic. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 16:36, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

2. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies.

   It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing.

   Y As far as I can tell, no obvious omissions. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 14:23, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

3. The article has a defined structure.

   Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind.

   Y Structure is logical and well laid out. Formatting appropriate. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 16:17, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

4. The article is reasonably well-written.

   The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it does not need to be "brilliant". The Manual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously.

   Y No obvious errors. Fixed a few external links in the content.· · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 14:23, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

5. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate.

   Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams, an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content.

   Not a topic where illustrations or diagrams are needed. Have not checked if there is an appropriate infobox. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 14:23, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

6. The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way.

   It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. Although Wikipedia is more than just a general encyclopedia, the article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible.

   Y Looks good to me. I have some background in education, though not a specialist in this aspect, and had no difficulty with the style and terminology. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 14:23, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Possible merge with Holistic grading

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To merge Holistic Scoring of Writing into Holistic grading, which is the more concise form; topics are synonyms; merging to the older article; overlap. Klbrain (talk) 12:16, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

---

It is not clear to me whether Holistic Scoring of Writing is a a subset of Holistic grading or the same thing, but on the assumption that it might be the same I propose a merger of the articles under the title Holistic Scoring of Writing, which is more clear about the scope (with redirect). If they are not the same, all that needs to be done is to add a small amount of content to both articles explaining the difference. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 17:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Rhhslv, your input would be appreciated. Cheers,· · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 17:40, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Discussion:

I'll read the entry on "Holistic Grading" again. Off hand I think there may be two separate topics here. Holistic grading may be taken as a pedagogical technique. It recommends that teachers adopt a holistic approach to grading student work, not scoring different accomplishments separately and then perhaps summing the scores but rather arriving at an intuitive all-over score that may weight different accomplishment differently. Holistic grading would then be distinguished from holistic scoring of writing in that the second is broader, including classroom holistic grading but also including standardized testing of composition skill and proficiency for admission, curricular advancement, etc. If this distinction between the two entries holds, then, as you say, small changes to both would suffice.Rhhslv (talk) 22:39, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Rhhslv, Thanks for your input. I will leave it at that until further comment or someone else chips in. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 16:39, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@Darwin Naz and Broccoli and Coffee: as major contributors to Holistic grading you may wish to express an opinion, Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 16:46, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Support merge on the grounds of short text and overlap. Holistic grading is particularly short, and the nuance of difference is so subtle that these topics are best discussed in the one place. Klbrain (talk) 10:05, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Support merge although I think it should go in the other direction, since "holistic scoring" is a broader term. Joyous! | Talk 02:31, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Essay-like

I noticed a few sections, and possibly the article as a whole, have an essay-like tone. One section I flagged was the "Need" section. I also boldly removed the theory section as it seems to be quite essay-like too. Is there anybody who can fix this article? Thank you. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:FC97:4774:E325:9B2B (talk) 23:17, 14 April 2022 (UTC)