Polished and professional, this review is ready for publication and does the following:
❍ Offers critical but fair analysis of key features of the restaurant
❍ Puts forward a convincing, firm, developed point of view
❍ Works in an engaging theme and/or the story of the restaurant, its neighborhood, owners or chefs
❍ Employs an interesting hook, a developed body, and a fresh wrap-up
❍ Uses show-not-tell, multi-sensory writing to support all claims; no clichés
❍ Shows strong control of syntax, diction and voice, with few errors in conventions of written English
❍ Continually engages readers with extra touches
|
Strong stuff. This review does most or all of the following:
❍ Offers critical but fair analysis of the restaurant’s key features
❍ Puts forward a largely convincing, generally well-developed POV
❍ Works in an engaging theme and/or story, although to a lesser degree than a better review
❍ Generally uses show-not-tell writing to support all claims; few clichés
❍ Includes a clear hook, body and wrap-up
❍ Shows control of syntax, diction and voice, with few errors in the conventions of written English
❍ Often engages readers with extra touches.
|
Promising effort that generally complies with requirements, but not ready for publishing. This review does most or all of the following:
❍ Offers analysis of the restaurant’s key features; fairness may not always be convincing
❍ May work in a theme and/or story but to a lesser degree than a better review
❍ May only minimally use show-not-tell writing claims; more clichés
❍ Includes a hook, body and wrap-up
❍ May show unstable control of syntax, diction and voice; errors in conventions of written English may be more apparent
❍ Offers few extra touches
|
This review may have some strong elements, but the overall impression is substandard. This review does most or all of the following:
❍ May show some analysis of the restaurant’s key features, but evaluation may be noticeably unconvincing or unfair in spots.
❍ Works in at best a vague awareness of theme or story
❍ More telling than showing to support claims; multiple clichés
❍ Structure (hook, body, wrap-up) of piece is unclear;
❍ Little or sporadic control of syntax, diction and voice; errors in conventions of written English are more apparent
❍ Writing likely is flat and uncompelling
|