User:MMBiology/grading rubric

Wikipedia grading rubric

• Account setup, message on talk page and userpage paragraph with links and image – 5 points
• Initial proposal – 10 points
• Written article – 70 points
• Peer Review – 15 points
  

Initial proposal (10 points)

One page posted on a subpage of the userpage of one team member (let me know who). Outline the general organization of your proposed article with subheadings. List at least 3 references you intend to use in the final product.

Rubric for grading the article (70 points)

Format

• Article follows the standard Wikipedia structure for a good article (5 points)
• No more than one grammatical/spelling error throughout the article (5 points)

Content

• Lead paragraph summarizes the subject according to Wikipedia standards (5 points)
• Citations are present throughout the text and used correctly according to Wikipedia format (see Wikipedia:citations) (5 points)
• Bibliography includes at least 5 secondary resources, and is formatted correctly according to Wikipedia format (5 points)
• The content of the article includes all reasonably researched information on the topic. I should not be able to do a quick literature search and find a great deal of information that is not included in the article. It should be written following Wikipedia guidelines including an unbiased viewpoint. Missing major points of information or including incorrect information without citations will cause a loss of points. (30 points)
• Response to reviews (comments/suggestions on your talk page or the talk page of the article) in the form of substantive changes or explanations of why nothing was changed are required by April 20th. These “reviews” may be from the instructor, teaching assistant, classmates, or the Wikipedia community as a whole (15 points).

Peer Review (15 points)

Each student is required to post thoughtful, constructive comments and suggestions on at least 3 articles from other class members. You will be assigned as a primary reviewer for one article and a secondary reviewer on two articles. You will receive up to 9 points for your primary review and 3 points for each secondary review.

Peer assessment of contributions

At the end of the semester I will ask you to fill out a peer assessment of the cooperative work skills of each group member. As a group project the expectation is that the workload is shared evenly. This means that anyone not doing their fair share will be marked down in the final grading.

Assessment of Cooperative work skills

Header text	Self	#2	#3	#4
Teamwork, did an equal share of the work	%	%	%	%
Quality of team work	1-4	1-4	1-4	1-4
Kept an open mind, considered other’s ideas	1-4	1-4	1-4	1-4
Contributed useful ideas	1-4	1-4	1-4	1-4
Communicated ideas clearly/effectively	1-4	1-4	1-4	1-4

For teamwork, each person’s contribution should be given as a percentage of the total so that Self+#2+#3+#4=100%. For the remaining four items, the quality of the students contribution should be evaluated on a scale of 1-4 with 4 being the highest quality (adapted from Nagel LM, Ebert-May D, Weber EP, Hodder J. 2005. Learning through peer assessment. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 3(7):390-391.

Loss of points:

• Plagiarism will result in zero points for the assignment as well as being reported to the college
• Missing a deadline (- 5 points per day)
• In appropriately placing proposal in the main space as opposed to a subpage of one of the user pages.
• Using unnecessary direct quotes (scientific articles rarely use quotations, this is best left to the historians) (-5 points)
• Repetitive information in the article (-5 points)
• Incorrect scientific information (-5 points)
• Excessive primary sources (-5 points)