Overall, nice work on the graded ledes exercise. Plus, for the first time you're getting very 
specific evaluations in numerical form. That's called a grade.
From the syllabus, here's a roundup of what the funny numbers cited in your returned work means:
4.0:
  Story could be published virtually as is. It shows superior command of
  the facts, news judgment, story organization, reporting and writing.
3.5:
  Could be published with very minor revisions. Generally well-written, 
 accurate copy containing all relevant material, but requires minor  
editing for maximum precision and clarity.
3.0: Better-than-average story. The story was handled well. Copy needs some rewriting and polishing before it could be published.
2.5:
  A little above average. The story might have a significant problem 
with  reporting, organization, completeness, ect. Certainly needs 
rewriting.
2.0:
  Average job. Not a story most readers would read unless they really  
needed the information. The story may have reporting, organization or  
writing problems.
1.5:
 A  weak story. The story may have a buried lede, problems in news  
interpretation, problems in story organization, omission of some  
important fact or source. The story needs substantial revision.
1.0:
  A non-story. The story lacks news judgment, displays major flaws in  
reporting and writing, omits important facts. The story needs  
substantial rethinking. Also, a story with any fact error automatically gets this grade.
0.0:
  Story is late or failed to receive instructor's approval. Story is  
misleading or unethical. Organization of writing flaws make the story  
incoherent.
No comments:
Post a Comment