Criteria | Excellent | Needs work | Failing |
---|---|---|---|
Formatting | |||
Word Count | Around 250 words, perfectly concise. | 200-300 words, mostly concise. | Below 200 or over 300 words, too long or too short. |
Section Length | 45-60 words per section, highly condensed. | 60-65 words per section, adequately condensed. | >65 words per section, too wordy. |
Sub-section Length | Each sub-section is under 45 words and clearly defined. | Sub-sections are mostly under 45 words, with some exceptions. | Sub-sections consistently exceed 45 words and lack clarity. |
Brevity and Clarity | Article is exceptionally concise and clear. | Article is mostly concise and clear, with minor lapses. | Article lacks conciseness and clarity. |
Title and Subtitle | |||
Headline Quality | Approximately 6 words and tied to the article's analysis and/or unique element. | Slightly longer than 6 words, but still related to the analysis. | Too long, or too vague (could be used for many different articles) |
Headline Appeal | Catchy, strong, and memorable, stands out from mainstream headlines. | Adequately catchy but lacks uniqueness or memorability. | Generic, similar to mainstream headlines, not memorable. |
Subtitle Clarity and Relevance | Enhances the headline, succinctly adds context related to the analysis. | Provides context but could be more closely tied to the analysis. | Fails to add value or context to the headline. |
Content | |||
Story Explanation | Story is immediately clear and engaging. | Story is somewhat clear, lacks some engagement. | Story is unclear or unengaging. |
Conversational | Language is clear, engaging, and jargon-free, suitable for a wide audience. | Language mostly clear but may include some jargon or complex terms. | Language is filled with jargon or is too complex, not reader-friendly. |
Context | Provides and explains relevant context, enhances understanding. | Some context provided but may be irrelevant or confusing. | No context or irrelevant information. |
Relevance and Impact | Captures the significance of the story exceptionally well. | Adequately addresses the story's importance. | Fails to capture why the story matters. |
Use of Data | Concrete numbers, statistics, and details used, adds depth without complexity. | Adequate use of data, but may have minor complexities. | Poor or no use of data, too complex or irrelevant. |
Analysis | |||
Underreported Insights | Offers deep, underreported insights and perspectives. | Provides some insights, but they are somewhat surface-level. | Lacks unique insights, too similar to mainstream coverage. |
Objectivity | Maintains matter-of-fact analysis with no opinions. | Mostly objective but may contain subtle biases. | Contains obvious opinions or biases. |
Insightfulness | Analysis is exceptionally insightful and thought-provoking. | Analysis is adequate but lacks depth. | Analysis lacks insight or is overly obvious. |
Hostile Audience Test | Bulletproof even to a critical audience. | Generally solid but may have minor flaws. | Fails under scrutiny, not convincing. |
Sourcing | |||
Source Linking | All sources are accurately and relevantly linked, and reputable. Every fact that isn’t obvious is sourced. | Sources are linked but may be not reputable (like unsubstantiated social media posts). | Lacks source linking, affecting credibility |