Based on the proposal report, do the documents follow their specific purpose?
Was the information provided accurate (i.e. location, time, date etc.)?
Were the documents eye-catching and did they entice the audience to enquire more information?
Were the documents approved by Dr. Ashe and Mrs. Manning?
Were effective changes made to the documents after receiving critique and suggestions from Dr. Ashe, Mrs. Manning, Dr. Tirrell and the class?
-------------------
A- Based on the proposal report, the documents followed the specific purpose laid out. The information provided was specific and accurate. The documents were eye-catching and enticed the audience to enquire more information. The documents were approved by Dr. Ashe and Mrs. Manning. Correct and effective changes were made to the documents after receiving critique and suggestions. No grammar/spelling errors.
----------------------
B- Most major changes were made after receiving critique. Document was eye-catching but could use improvement. The document served its specific purpose. Little to no grammar/spelling errors.
-------------------------
C- The information provided was correct yet unspecific. The documents were disorganized and hard to read/understand. The documents were approved by Dr. Ashe and Mrs. Manning. Some changes were made after receiving critique, but not all. The document loosely followed the purpose laid out in the proposal. Some grammar/spelling errors.
-----------------------
D- Some of the information provided was correct. The documents were not easily read and were very disorganized. There were many grammar/spelling errors.
--------------------------
F- Failed to follow the specific purpose laid out in the proposal report. The information provided was inaccurate or missing. The documents were boring and superfluous. The critique of Dr. Ashe, Mrs. Manning, Dr. Tirrell and the class was ignored. Pieces of the documents were missing. Riddled with grammar/spelling errors.