POPULAR SCIENCE ARTICLE - Australia Assignments

ASSESSMENT OF BIOL8750 POPULAR SCIENCE ARTICLE
STUDENT NAME: _______________________________________________
STUDENT NUMBER: _____________________________________________

Weight	HD: 85-100	D: 75-84	Cr: 65-74	P: 50-64	Mark
TITLE/HEADLINE Attractive, accurate, pithy? Is headline simple and direct (seven to ten words at most), with the most relevant and important words at the start.	5	Short catchy and relevant title, with most important words at start.	Short catchy title, with most important words included.	Short informative title but lacking important keywords and structure.	Somewhat informative title but lacking keywords and structure.
INTRODUCTION/BACKGOUND Does article start with a short, sharp statement of it’s essential elements/facts, in no more than two sentences. Do opening paragraph(s) clearly state what’s new, relevant, or surprising. Readers want to know Five Ws: who, what, where, when, why, and sometimes how.	15	The novel conservation topic and its significance immediately evident, embedded in thorough background based on relevant scientific literature. Relevance/excitement of topic to potential readers clearly stated.	The novel conservation topic and its significance is somewhat evident. Relevance to readers stated.	The conservation topic and its relevance to readers evident but lacks clear and sharp statement.	The conservation topic and its relevance to readers not clearly evident.
SYNTHESIS Does the article accurately summarise what was done in the published research and the novelty/excitement of findings? Does the article place the research findings in a broader context that is concise and understandable? What is the significance of results in a conservation context?	25	A thorough and precise evaluation of the journal article is provided (what was done and what was found). How the research relates to existing knowledge and pertinent issues in contemporary conservation is clear. Citations support specific statements. Writing is brief, clear, and objective.	A thorough evaluation of the journal article is provided (but lacks precision and details). How the research relates to existing knowledge and pertinent issues in contemporary conservation is evident. Citations support specific statements. Writing is brief, clear, and objective.	An evaluation of the journal article is provided but lacks in-depth insights. The link between research and existing knowledge is provided. Citations mostly support specific statements. Writing is objective.	An evaluation of the journal article is provided but lacks in depth insights and is only peripheral. The link between research and existing knowledge is provided but unclear. Citations sometimes support specific statements but could be improved. Writing is objective.

READIBILITY Is readability set at the level of an educated person, toned down but not dumbed down?	10	Written clearly and at the appropriate level (i.e. an educated readership). Text has no jargon and not dumbing down of the science. Concise and accurate reflection of the actual science. Educated person should be able to understand what was written at first reading attempt.	Written clearly and at the appropriate level (i.e. an educated readership). Limited jargon and accurate reflection of the science.	Written mostly clearly and at the appropriate level but could be improved. Some jargon and/or dumbing down in text, but still accurate reflection of the science.	Written mostly clearly and at the appropriate level but could needs major improvement. The excessive use of jargon and/or dumbing down of science makes it difficult to grasp the main message of the article. Reader unlikely to grasp main message after first reading attempt.
DATA PRESENTATION Are figures and tables appropriate, clear, effective, correctly captioned? Stand alone?	15	Excellent visual or data items that can be easily interpreted/understood as stand-alone items (i.e. no reference to text required). These may be created by the writer using various sources of information, e.g. infographics. Items relevant to main topic/message of popular article. Captions are short, accurate and informative.	Good visual or data items that can be easily interpreted/understood as stand-alone items (i.e. no reference to text required). Display items mostly relevant to main topic/message of popular article. Captions are short, accurate and informative.	Visual or data presentation items are interpreted/understood but not necessarily as stand alone items (i.e. reference to text required). Items somewhat relevant to main topic/message of popular article. Captions are short, accurate and informative.	Visual or data presentation items are not easily interpreted/understood without consulting main text. Items somewhat relevant to main topic/message of popular article. Captions not short, accurate and/or informative.
DISCUSSION and CONCLUSIONS Are conclusions accurate and how do they relate to a particular conservation issue(s)? Comparison with other work? Further work to be done?	20	Excellently-synthesised, succinct, understandable, and precise conclusions are made. Clear indication of what the most important outcomes of research was and what it means in general. Indication of why it is important to know about the issue. Insights drawn are thoughtful and appropriate and embedded within the existing body of knowledge. Conclusions are supported by the consulted literature.	Well-synthesised, succinct and precise conclusions are made. An indication of what the outcomes of the research means in general is provided. Insights drawn are thoughtful and appropriate and embedded within the existing body of knowledge. Conclusions are supported by the consulted literature.	Mostly well-synthesised conclusions are made. An indication of what the outcomes of research means in general is provided, but lacks clarity. The general need for the research is unclear. Insights drawn are sufficient and mostly embedded within the existing body of knowledge. Conclusions are supported by the consulted literature.	Mostly, sound conclusions are made. An indication of what the outcomes the research means in general is unclear. The general need for the research is unclear. Insights are limited and somewhat embedded within the existing body of knowledge. Conclusions are mostly supported by the consulted literature.

REFERENCES Are contentious statements backed up with research? The same goes for facts and figures. Suitable coverage? Correctly cited in text and listed in reference list?	10	Appropriate references provided to support contentious statements, facts and figures. References appropriately cited in consistent style both in text and in reference list. No errors in citations or reference list.	Appropriate references provided to support contentious statements, facts and figures. References appropriately cited in consistent style. A few errors in citations or reference list.	Mostly appropriate references provided to support contentious statements, facts and figures. References mainly cited in consistent style. Citations not placed in text appropriately. Several errors in citations or reference list present.	References mostly not cited in consistent style. Few citations, inappropriately placed. Many errors in citations or reference list.
TOTAL	100