“`html
| Criteria | Excellent (90-100 points) | Good (80-89 points) | Fair (70-79 points) | Poor (60-69 points) | Unsatisfactory (0-59 points) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Introduction | Engaging and captivating introduction that clearly states the thesis and grabs the reader’s attention. | Clear introduction with a thesis statement that engages the reader. | Introduction is present but lacks engagement or clarity in the thesis statement. | Weak introduction with an unclear or missing thesis statement. | No introduction or thesis statement. |
| Background Information | Comprehensive and relevant background information that enhances understanding of the subject. | Relevant background information provided, mostly enhances understanding. | Some background information provided, but lacks depth or relevance. | Minimal background information, lacks relevance or depth. | No background information provided. |
| Judgment and Thesis | Clear, well-supported judgment with a strong thesis and detailed examples of positive and negative aspects. | Clear judgment with a thesis and examples of positive and negative aspects. | Judgment is present but lacks clarity or sufficient examples. | Weak judgment with unclear thesis and few examples. | No clear judgment or thesis statement. |
| Criterion | Well-established standards for judgment, clearly articulated and relevant to the review. | Standards for judgment are established and mostly relevant. | Some standards for judgment are present but not clearly articulated. | Weak or unclear standards for judgment. | No standards for judgment established. |
| Evidence | Strong, convincing evidence that supports claims, enhancing credibility. | Good evidence that supports claims and builds credibility. | Some evidence provided, but lacks strength or relevance. | Minimal evidence, weak support for claims. | No evidence provided to support claims. |
| Comparison | Insightful comparison to similar products, clearly articulated and relevant. | Relevant comparison to similar products, mostly clear. | Comparison present but lacks depth or clarity. | Weak or unclear comparison. | No comparison provided. |
| Entering the Conversation | Effectively incorporates multiple perspectives with clear agreement or disagreement. | Incorporates multiple perspectives with some clarity. | Some perspectives included, but lacks clarity or depth. | Minimal perspectives included, unclear or weak discussion. | No perspectives included. |
| Conclusion and Recommendation | Persuasive conclusion with a clear recommendation that influences reader action. | Clear conclusion with a recommendation that suggests reader action. | Conclusion present but lacks persuasion or clarity in recommendation. | Weak conclusion with unclear or missing recommendation. | No conclusion or recommendation. |
| MLA Format and Length | Perfect MLA format, meets or exceeds length requirement. | Minor MLA format errors, meets length requirement. | Several MLA format errors, slightly below length requirement. | Significant MLA format errors, does not meet length requirement. | No adherence to MLA format, significantly below length requirement. |
| Language and Style | Professional, descriptive language that maintains personal voice. | Descriptive language with some personal voice. | Language is somewhat descriptive, lacks personal voice. | Weak language, lacks description and personal voice. | No descriptive language, lacks personal voice. |
| Works Cited | Complete and correctly formatted Works Cited page. | Mostly complete and correctly formatted Works Cited page. | Works Cited page present but with several errors. | Incomplete or incorrectly formatted Works Cited page. | No Works Cited page. |
“`