Grading guide:

Scan, skim, browse, and then, read through the project carefully.

Now read it again.

If you spot spelling, stylistic or grammatical errors, fix them (make sure that you are logged in under "user settings," first).

This way you have not only judged the project but also improved it, and this is your goal.

If there are places that you feel ought to respond to CounterArguments not entertained by the writer, make links and name and/or include them.

Remember, CounterArguments aren't necessarily antagonistic, and you should probably only dock points if an obviously available common-place is elided or neglected.

Try to compress the narrative into an enthymeme with a [major and minor premise, and restate the argument, as you see it, for the peer you are evaluating.

Grade is based on:

5/5 Was I interested? Did the narrative draw the reader in?

5/5 Mechanics: Structure, Format, and Grammar

5/5 Clarity: Was the narrative easy to follow? Was there a clear direction the narrative was going?

5/5 Overall tone and message

5/5 Completed the overall assignment

25/25 Total points

1. Do I want to read it again?

2. Do I understand its purpose?

3. Would a recognizable community of users understand the writer's purpose?

4. Any supporting research?

5. Do I want to actualize any of the goals of the paper?

6. Are these goals ascertainable, that is, can I find the document's "starting points" and assumptions (premises)?

7. Can I follow the directives it offers to users?

8. Have I come away from the narrative with a fresh perspective on the topic(s)?

9. How well does the wiki space you are engaging and evaluating draw from and deploy relevant tools of narrative and argument (definition, analogy, cause, evaluation) for its case?

10. Was the space composed in an accessible manner?

11. Was it designed for ease of use?