Excellent (4)

Competent (3)

Minimally Competent (2)

Poor (1)

Not Competent (0)

Thesis and Arguments

(30%)

The author creates a believable and historically informed Roman point of view that is consistent throughout the text. 

The author creates an adequate Roman POV.

The author creates a marginally acceptable Roman POV, but not always consistent throughout the paper.

Creates somewhat inconsistent with historical facts Roman POV.

Completely inconsistent with a Roman POV.

Evidence

(30%)

The author uses good evidence from the textbook and primary sources available that strengthens the narrative about the Roman World and shows the student understand this historical period. 

The author uses some good evidence from the textbook and primary sources available that strengthen the narrative about the Roman World and shows the student understand this historical period. 

The author uses some evidence (though not the best available) that supports the narrative about the Roman world.

   little evidence used. 

no evidence used.

Writing technique

(15%)

The paper is well written with no grammar or punctuation errors, and the language is precise and appropriately formal. The paper flows and is well organized.

The mechanics of the paper are correct, and is well-written and properly organized. Only occasional errors in mechanics.

Weakness in spelling, punctuation, and/or grammar. Sentence and paragraph construction is distracting and weakens paper.

Problems in spelling, punctuation, paragraph construction, and grammar make parts of the paper unintelligible. Weak organization.

Problems in spelling, punctuation, paragraph construction, and grammar so severe so as to make the paper unintelligible with little organization.

Historical Context

(20%)

The author analyzes the sources with insight, placing the evidence in the appropriate historical contexts. Thorough awareness of perspective on the sources. Demonstrates depth of understanding of the relevant period and places.

Some effort at contextualizing the evidence, and at critically using the sources in the appropriate context. Demonstrates awareness of period and place of source.

Partial contextualization of sources. Irrelevant or misinformed placement of sources in period and place.

Minimal evaluation of the context of the sources, and use of the sources unconnected to the source.

Demonstrates no awareness of the need to contextualize sources.

Citations

(5%)

All sources cited in footnotes in the Chicago Manual of Styles’ (CMS) notes format. 

All sources cited in footnotes in the CMS’s notes format but with some mistakes.

Most sources cited in footnotes in the CMS but some missing and some errors. 

Or cited but in the wrong format.

Few sources cited. 

No citations at all.