ASSESSMENT OF BIOL8750 POPULAR SCIENCE ARTICLE
STUDENT NAME: _______________________________________________
STUDENT NUMBER: _____________________________________________
Weight HD: 85-100
TITLE/HEADLINE Short catchy and relevant
Attractive, accurate, pithy? Is headline simple title, with most important
and direct (seven to ten words at most), with 5 words at start.
the most relevant and important words at the
start.
The novel conservation
INTRODUCTION/BACKGOUND topic and its significance
Does article start with a short, sharp immediately evident,
statement of it’s essential elements/facts, in embedded in thorough
no more than two sentences. Do opening 15 background based on
paragraph(s) clearly state what’s new, relevant scientific
relevant, or surprising. Readers want to know literature.
Five Ws: who, what, where, when, why, and Relevance/excitement of
sometimes how. topic to potential readers
clearly stated.
A thorough and precise
evaluation of the journal
SYNTHESIS article is provided (what
Does the article accurately summarise what was done and what was
was done in the published research and the found). How the research
novelty/excitement of findings? Does the relates to existing
25 knowledge and pertinent
article place the research findings in a
broader context that is concise and issues in contemporary
understandable? What is the significance of conservation is clear.
results in a conservation context? Citations support specific
statements. Writing is
brief, clear, and objective.
D: 75-84
Short catchy title, with
most important words
included.
The novel conservation
topic and its significance is
somewhat evident.
Relevance to readers
stated.
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.
Cr: 65-74
Short informative title but
lacking important
keywords and structure.
The conservation topic and
its relevance to readers
evident but lacks clear and
sharp statement.
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.
P: 50-64 Mark
Somewhat informative
title but lacking
keywords and
structure.
The conservation topic
and its relevance to
readers not clearly
evident.
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.
 Written clearly and at the
appropriate level (i.e. an
educated readership). Text
has no jargon and not
dumbing down of the
READIBILITY science. Concise and
Is readability set at the level of an educated 10 accurate reflection of the
person, toned down but not dumbed down? actual science. Educated
person should be able to
understand what was
written at first reading
attempt.
Excellent visual or data
items that can be easily
interpreted/understood as
stand-alone items (i.e. no
reference to text required).
DATA PRESENTATION These may be created by
Are figures and tables appropriate, clear, 15 the writer using various
effective, correctly captioned? Stand alone? sources of information,
e.g. infographics. Items
relevant to main
topic/message of popular
article. Captions are short,
accurate and informative.
Excellently-synthesised,
succinct, understandable,
and precise conclusions
are made. Clear indication
of what the most important
outcomes of research was
DISCUSSION and CONCLUSIONS
and what it means in
Are conclusions accurate and how do they
general. Indication of why
relate to a particular conservation issue(s)? 20
it is important to know
Comparison with other work? Further work to
about the issue. Insights
be done?
drawn are thoughtful and
appropriate and embedded
within the existing body of
knowledge. Conclusions
are supported by the
consulted literature.
Written clearly and at the
appropriate level (i.e. an
educated readership).
Limited jargon and
accurate reflection of the
science.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
 Appropriate references
provided to support
contentious statements,
REFERENCES
facts and figures.
Are contentious statements backed up with
10 References appropriately
research? The same goes for facts and
cited in consistent style
figures. Suitable coverage? Correctly cited in
both in text and in
text and listed in reference list?
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