Wikipedia talk:Education program archive/Louisiana State University/Prokaryotic Diversity (Spring 2014)/Grading
Grading
editWikipedia contributions will be graded as follows:
| Category | Non-existent | Beginning | Emerging | Exemplary |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Organization and structure | No subheadings, no taxonomy box (0 pts) | Poorly organized, little or no use of subheadings, and/or no taxonomy box (10 pts) | Well organized, including some but not all of: a lede, taxonomy box, and subheadings (15 pts) | Fully structured entry, including a lede, taxonomy box, subheadings, table of contents (20 pts) |
| Comprehensiveness | Missing most required items (0 points) | Cursory description of required items, some missing (15 points) | Full description of some required elements and partial description of others (30 pts) | Fully and clearly describes the phylogeny, physiology, discovery, genomics, involvement in applied science and/or medicine, any other relevant information, and how we know these facts (40 pts) |
| Respecting the Wikipedia standards | Highly opinionated, argumentative tone, no regard for Wikipedia standards (0 pts) | More than 3 instances of argumentation/opinions without attribution or balance (5 pts) | One to 3 instances of argumentation/opinions without attribution or balance (10 pts) | Article is written from a neutral point of view, balanced description of both sides to any controversy, aimed at a high-school level (15 pts) |
| Internal and external links | No links included (0 points) | More than five instances of missing or ineffective links (10 pts) | One to five instances of missing or ineffective links (15 pts) | All possible reference points to outside and other Wikipedia webpages are effectively linked (20 pts) |
| Fully referenced using primary literature | No primary literature references (0 pts) | More than five instances of missing or inappropriate references (10 pts) | One to five instances of missing or inappropriate references (15 pts) | All statements of fact or even previously stated opinions are recognized and accurately reported citing relevant primary literature (20 points) |
| Correct spelling and grammar | More than ten spelling and/or grammar mistakes (0 pts) | Seven to ten spelling and/or grammar mistakes (4 pts) | Between three and six spelling and/or grammar mistakes (7 pts) | Two or fewer spelling and/or grammar mistakes (10 pts) |
| All topic-specific terms defined | More than ten instances of undefined jargon, acronyms, or unusual terms (0 pts) | Six to ten instances of undefined jargon, acronyms, or unusual terms (4 pts) | One to five instances of undefined jargon, acronyms, or unusual terms (7 pts) | Jargon is avoided, all topic-specific, unusual terms and acronyms are well-defined (10 pts) |
| Legal | Any instances of plagiarism/significant paraphrasing, inappropriate image use WILL RESULT IN AN INCOMPLETE FOR THIS PROJECT and NO CREDIT, as well as ACADEMIC ACTION. See tutorial here | Complete adherence to Wikipedia copyright and plagiarism rules at all times, INCLUDING IN YOUR SANDBOX (15 pts) |