Writing the Book, Film and Article Review

1. Title: Choose a clear and engaging title that reflects the content and tone of your review. (2
points)
2. Introduction: Start with a brief introduction that provides basic information about the work and
its creator(s), as well as your overall impression or expectation. Give a personal rating of the
work in question from a scale of 0-5. (5 points)
3. Body Paragraphs: Organize your review into coherent paragraphs, each focusing on a specific
aspect of the work. Be sure to include the important segments for each particular review that we
discussed in class. The headings must be in bold and underlined. (e.g. Book Review: Summary,
Social and Historical Context, Style, and Thoughts; Film Review: Synopsis; Analysis on Technical
Elements, Commentary on the Acting, Evaluation of the Film’s Overall Success, Final
Recommendation; and Article Review: Abstract, Introduction, Body, and Conclusion ). (10
points)
4. Language and Style: Apply the conventions of academic text that you learned. (3 points)
5. Thesis Statement: It must be clearly stated in the introduction, which is the main claim of your
review. Please set your thesis statement in bold and italics. (5 points)
6. Citations: There must be at least 5 citations in your review and a Reference list must be provided
at the end of your Review) (8 points)
7. Conclusion: End your review with a concise conclusion that summarizes your main points and
provides a final recommendation or takeaway for your readers. Include a thought provoking
statement in the end. (5 points)

Criteria Excellent Good Fair Poor Very Poor

Thorough analysis Comprehensive Adequate Limited analysis, Superficial or
covering all evaluation with coverage, some lacks depth inaccurate
Content relevant aspects minor omissions key aspects analysis
overlooked
Well-organized Clear structure, Generally Disorganized, Confusing
Clarity and with clear minor issues with coherent, some difficult to structure, lacks
Structure progression organization sections lack follow coherence
clarity
Evidence Strong use of Sufficient use of Limited use of Little to no Unsupported
and Support evidence and evidence, some evidence, evidence assertions or
examples areas lacking assertions not provided opinions
supported
Language Clear, concise Mostly clear and Language Awkward or Inappropriate or
and Style language with engaging, generally unclear unclear language
engaging style occasional appropriate, language
awkwardness some
awkwardness
Critical Insightful analysis Generally insightful Some critical Little critical Lacks critical
Thinking demonstrating with occasional analysis, lacks thought evident analysis or
critical thought lapses depth understanding
Overall Compelling and Positive overall Generally Mixed or Largely negative
Impression convincing impression with positive, some negative or unclear
evaluation minor reservations significant impression, few impression
criticisms positives
Writing the Reaction Paper

1. Your title must be interesting, catchy, and relevant to the topic of your reaction paper (2 points)
2. Choose a recent national or international current event that interests you or holds significance in
the public domain. Ensure the event is current and relevant, preferably occurring within the past
few weeks or months. Conduct thorough research to understand the background, context, and
significance of the event. Consider multiple perspectives, sources, and opinions to gain a
comprehensive understanding. Your introduction must clearly introduce the topic of your
choice, showing why this must be discussed while providing just enough information for your
readers to relate to the topic. (4 points)
3. State your main claim clearly in the introduction after providing context to the topic. Clearly
state your position or reaction to the event, supported by evidence, reasoning, and examples.
Use concise and persuasive language to communicate your ideas effectively. Underline and set
in bold your thesis statement for easy reference (4 points)
4. Evaluate the event critically, considering its causes, implications, and potential outcomes.
Identify key stakeholders, underlying issues, and any biases present in the reporting or
interpretation of the event. Anticipate and address potential counterarguments or opposing
viewpoints. Acknowledge complexities and nuances inherent in the event, demonstrating
intellectual honesty and open-mindedness. State counterarguments and address each
counterargument in your refutation. Reflect on your personal thoughts, feelings, and reactions to
the event. Consider how the event relates to your own experiences, beliefs, values, and
worldview. (12 points)
5. End with a clear conclusion. Propose Solutions or Recommendations. Suggest constructive
solutions or recommendations to address the issues raised by the event. Base your proposals on
sound reasoning, evidence, and consideration of potential consequences. (5 points)
6. Maintain a formal tone appropriate for academic or professional writing. Ensure coherence,
cohesion, and logical flow between ideas and paragraphs. (5 points)
7. Provide proper citations and references for any sources or evidence used to support your
analysis. (There must be at least 5 citations) Follow 7th APA Edition. A reference list must be
provided at the end of your review. (8 points)

Reaction Paper Rubric for Current Events

Understanding of the Event

Demonstrates a clear understanding of the current national or international event being discussed.
Provides relevant background information to contextualize the event. Identifies key players, factors, or
issues involved in the event.

Insight and Analysis

Offers insightful analysis and interpretation of the event's significance. Evaluates the impact and
implications of the event on various stakeholders, communities, or regions. Identifies underlying causes
or contributing factors to the event.

Objectively Provides evidence to support claims and arguments.

Presents a thoughtful and well-articulated personal reaction to the event. Expresses opinions, emotions,
or reflections in a clear and coherent manner. Explains the reasons behind the personal reaction and any
biases or perspectives influencing it. Engages in critical thinking by questioning assumptions, biases, or
underlying narratives related to the event. Considers alternative viewpoints or perspectives on the
event. Evaluates the reliability and credibility of sources of information related to the event. Manifests
strong ability to address counterarguments objectively and presents and cites insights by experts in the
field.

Connection to Course Content or Themes

Connects the event to relevant course content, themes, or concepts. Demonstrates an understanding of
how the event relates to broader societal, political, economic, or cultural issues discussed in the course.

Clarity and Organization

Presents ideas in a clear, organized, and logical manner. Uses appropriate paragraph structure and
transitions to guide the reader through the paper. Maintains coherence and cohesion throughout the
paper.

Writing Style and Mechanics

Demonstrates strong writing skills, including grammar, punctuation, spelling, and sentence structure.
Uses the conventions of academic writing appropriately.

Creativity and Originality

Demonstrates creativity in the approach to discussing the event or expressing personal reactions. Offers
original insights or perspectives on the event that go beyond surface-level analysis.

Overall Evaluation:

Excellent (A): The reaction paper demonstrates a deep understanding of the event, provides insightful
analysis and personal reflections, engages in critical thinking, connects effectively to course content, and
is exceptionally well-written with few to no errors.

Proficient (B): The reaction paper effectively addresses the event with solid analysis and personal
reflection, demonstrates critical thinking, makes connections to course content, and is well-written with
minor errors.
Satisfactory (C): The reaction paper adequately addresses the event with some analysis and personal
reflection, engages in basic critical thinking, connects somewhat to course content, and is generally clear
and coherent but may contain noticeable errors.

Needs Improvement (D): The reaction paper has significant weaknesses in addressing the event, lacks
depth in analysis or personal reflection, demonstrates limited critical thinking, makes weak connections
to course content, and may have numerous errors affecting clarity and coherence.

Inadequate (F): The reaction paper fails to effectively address the event, lacks analysis or personal
reflection, demonstrates minimal critical thinking, does not connect to course content, and contains
numerous errors hindering understanding.