Critical Article/Book/Chapter Review
Grading Protocol
last update: 12 December 2007
Proper Format
  1. The complete and accurate bibliographic reference to the text under review (including author, title, publication information, and page references) are to be listed at the outset of the review, followed by the reviewer's name and the date the review was composed.
  2. The bibliographic reference and all citations should conform to the Chicago Manual of Style. However, citations should be inserted into the text in parentheses rather than consigned to footnotes. Since the complete bibliographic reference to the work being reviewed is given at the beginning of the review, any references to it are kept as brief as possible, typically comprising simply the page numbers in parentheses.
  3. The document should be submitted in print to the instructor along with a copy of the article/chapter being reviewed (or an active link to the digital version).
  4. The review should be posted to the Blackboard, emailed, or otherwise distributed to seminar members by at least the weekend before the class presentation. In addition to the bibliographic information for the article or book, include on the review any pertinent references to the Bible or other seminar texts so your colleagues can prepare the passage(s) ahead of time. If there is a digital text of the work you are reviewing, it is handy to include the link in the review itself so that interested parties can access the study.
  5. A print copy of the review will be submitted to the instructor, along with a copy of the text under review or the address to an active link of the electronic version of the text.
  6. The printed review should be single-spaced and formatted to fit on one page; word count should be included in parentheses at the end of the last paragraph.
 
1
 Bibliographic reference is complete and correctly follow Chicago Manual of Style
 
1
 All other citations are complete and correctly follow Chicago Manual of Style, including parenthetical notes in body of review
 
1
 File submitted electronically in html or xml format
 
1
 Print copy of review formatted correctly, with complete reviewer's information, date, and word count.
 
1
 Copy of text under review (or address to an active link of the e-text) submitted with review
Part One: Synopsis & Sketch of Main Features
  1. What is the structure of the article/chapter/book?
  2. What is the key idea or thesis of the article/chapter/book?
  3. What key terms are used in the article/chapter/book, and what do they mean?
 
10
 Clear, succinct, and accurate synopsis of the article/chapter/book contents, including structure, thesis, and key terms (with definitions)
 
8
 Good and accurate synopsis of the article/chapter/book contents, including structure, thesis, and key terms (with definitions)
 
6
 Weak synopsis of the chapter article/chapter/book, omitting either its structure, thesis, key terms, or definitions
 
4
 Poor synopsis of the chapter article/chapter/book, omitting two of the following: structure, thesis, key terms, or definitions
 
2
 Synopsis of the chapter article/chapter/book omits three of the following: structure, thesis, key terms, or definitions
 
0
 Inaccurate description of article/chapter/book contents, no description, or synopsis lacking all required elements
Part Two: Evidence & Illustrations
  1. What images, illustrations, Scripture passages and/or other evidence does the author cite to support the key idea or thesis?
  2. What key phrases or sentences would you highlight to conveying the author's point of view in this article/chapter/book (i.e., some "quotable quotes" or "sound bites" to help other students remember the main concepts of this chapter)?
 
5
 Succinct and accurate report of the main arguments and evidence adduced to support them; 3–5 "quotable quotes" illustrating the author's key arguments
 
4
 Good but wordy report of the main arguments and evidence adduced; 2–3 "quotable quotes" illustrating the author's key arguments
 
3
 Accurate but wordy report of the main arguments and evidence adduced; 1–2 "quotable quotes" illustrating the author's key arguments
 
2
 Diffuse report of the main arguments and evidence adduced; 1–2 "quotable quotes" illustrating the author's key arguments
 
1
 Barebones summary of the main arguments; little or no discussion of the supporting evidence used; no "quotable quotes" illustrating the author's key arguments
 
0
 Inaccurate report of the main arguments and/or evidence used; no "quotable quotes" illustrating the author's key arguments
Part Three: Critical Evaluation
  1. What are the most interesting points raised or illustrations used?
  2. What concepts do you think are the most important for our studies?
  3. What concepts remain unclear to you?
  4. When you compare the Scripture passages cited in the article/chapter/book with the way they are interpreted by the author, what kinds of differences do you see between your reading and the author's interpretation? Are these differences of method or content or both?
  5. What do you see as the three most important contributions of this article/chapter/book to understanding the topic, and what do you see as its limitations—or even errors of fact or of method?
 
5
 Clear, succinct, and interesting responses to all five of these questions
 
4
 Clear and interesting responses to four of these five questions
 
3
 Clear responses to three of these five questions
 
2
 Vague responses to 3–5 of these questions
 
1
 Vague responses to 1–2 of these questions
 
0
 No responses to these questions, or responses based on significant factual or methodological errors
Composition: Grammar, punctuation, spelling, Syntax
  1. Does the essay follow the standard tri-partite format for a critique?
  2. Is the essay written in clear, direct, inclusive, and formal English?
  3. Are the sentences free of grammatical, punctuation, spelling, and syntactical errors?
 
5
 Perfect work
 
4
 One grammatical, punctuation, spelling, or syntactical errors OR one instance of exclusive language
 
3
 Two or three grammatical, punctuation, spelling, and syntactical errors OR two instances of exclusive language
 
2
 Two or three grammatical, punctuation, spelling, and syntactical errors OR three instances of exclusive language
 
1
 Four grammatical, spelling, or syntactical errors OR several punctuation mistakes and three grammatical, spelling, or syntactical errors OR several punctuation mistakes OR four instances of exclusive language
 
0
 Essay does not follow the standard tri-partite format for a critique OR essay has more than four grammatical, punctuation, spelling, and syntactical errors OR essay has more than four instances of exclusive language
  Total Points (of 30)
– less points for late submission
  Net Points