From the syllabus, here's a roundup of what the funny numbers atop your returned work means:
4.0: Story could be published virtually as is. It shows superior command of the facts, news judgment, story organization, reporting and writing.
3.5: Could be published with very minor revisions. Generally well-written, accurate copy containing all relevant material, but requires minor editing for maximum precision and clarity.
3.0: Better-than-average story. The story was handled well. Copy needs some rewriting and polishing before it could be published.
2.5: A little above average. The story might have a significant problem with reporting, organization, completeness, ect. Certainly needs rewriting.
2.0: Average job. Not a story most readers would read unless they really needed the information. The story may have reporting, organization or writing problems.
1.5: A weak story. The story may have a buried lede, problems in news interpretation, problems in story organization, omission of some important fact or source. The story needs substantial revision.
1.0: A non-story. The story lacks news judgment, displays major flaws in reporting and writing, omits important facts. The story needs substantial rethinking.
0.0: Story is late or failed to receive instructor's approval. Story is misleading or unethical. Organization of writing flaws make the story incoherent.
4.0: Story could be published virtually as is. It shows superior command of the facts, news judgment, story organization, reporting and writing.
3.5: Could be published with very minor revisions. Generally well-written, accurate copy containing all relevant material, but requires minor editing for maximum precision and clarity.
3.0: Better-than-average story. The story was handled well. Copy needs some rewriting and polishing before it could be published.
2.5: A little above average. The story might have a significant problem with reporting, organization, completeness, ect. Certainly needs rewriting.
2.0: Average job. Not a story most readers would read unless they really needed the information. The story may have reporting, organization or writing problems.
1.5: A weak story. The story may have a buried lede, problems in news interpretation, problems in story organization, omission of some important fact or source. The story needs substantial revision.
1.0: A non-story. The story lacks news judgment, displays major flaws in reporting and writing, omits important facts. The story needs substantial rethinking.
0.0: Story is late or failed to receive instructor's approval. Story is misleading or unethical. Organization of writing flaws make the story incoherent.
No comments:
Post a Comment