Skip to main content Skip to navigation
Washington State University
Donna M. Campbell Courses & Resources

English 573: Editing in a Digital Age (Fall 2023)

English 573: Editing in a Digital Age

English 573:  Editing in a Digital Age

Fall 2023, 3 credits

Tuesdays and Thursdays, 1:30-2:45, Avery 110 and via Zoom

Dr. Donna Campbell,

Office Hours: T-Th 12-1 and by appointment, in-person (Avery 357) or via Zoom

Requirements: Fulfills DH elective requirement; 19th-century or 20th century historical period requirement

English 573:  Editing in a Digital Age

Fall 2023, 3 credits

Tuesdays and Thursdays, 1:30-2:45

Avery 110 and Zoom
August 25, 2023


Dr. Donna Campbell,

Avery 357 and Zoom

Office Hours: T-Th 12-1 and by appointment. Email me for an appointment or sign up for one using Calendly.

Office Phone: 509-335-4831

Course materials:


Requirements: Fulfills DH elective requirement, 19th-century or 20th century historical period requirement, when applicable


Course Description


English 573: Editing in a Digital Age asks the following question: “What is a good critical edition, and can, or should, the same features be translated into digital form?” We’ll read Edith Wharton, Mourning Dove, and Nella Larsen in the publication context of their works both during their own day and will look at digital editions of other authors. We will investigate theories of digital humanities and online editions through readings in The Broadview Reader in Book History and other articles. We will also read literary criticism on the authors we read to understand the historical, interpretive, and publication histories of the authors and the texts that they produced in a particular cultural moment.


This is not a technical DH class where you’ll be expected to use advanced tools and languages, and–very important–you do not need to know any more than basic information that you already have. We’ll look at underlying structures online and theoretical material that will help you to frame your understanding conceptually.


Required Texts


Note: Assigned secondary readings can be found in these editions; articles not in these editions are noted as (Canvas).


Larsen, Nella. Complete Fiction of Nella Larsen. Ed. Charles Larson. Knopf, 2001. ISBN 9780385721004.

Levy, Michelle and Tom Mole, eds. Broadview Reader in Book History. Broadview, 2015. ISBN 9781554810888.

Mourning Dove / Sho-Pow-Tan.  Cogewea, the Half Blood: A Depiction of the Great Montana Cattle Range. University of Nebraska Press, 1981. ISBN 9780803281103.

Wharton, Edith. The Age of Innocence (Norton Critical Edition). ISBN 9780393967944.

Wharton, Edith. The Custom of the Country (Broadview Edition). ISBN 9781551116730.

Wharton, Edith. The House of Mirth (Norton Critical Edition, 2d ed., 2018) ISBN 9780393624540.


Links to online archival material for editing will be added as the semester progresses.


Schedule of Assignments

This course is “front-loaded” in that the readings (novels, literary criticism, and editorial theory) will be heavier in the first half of the course in order to give you the tools and time to work on your independent editing projects and explore digital editions in the second half. Heavier reading weeks will often be followed by hands-on or digital weeks. Reading assignments for novels are generally heavier on Tuesday than Thursday, since the amount of time you have between Tuesday and Thursday is less than you’ll have for reading the novels between Thursday and Tuesday.


This schedule is divided into three components: the main reading of the day, Critical Readings, and Exhibits. You should come to class each day having read the main reading and Critical Readings.

  • Articles and other required readings are available in Canvas: “Article Expert” posts are due by 9 p.m. on the day you present them.
·       “Exhibits” are links to web sites, digital tools, and other materials that we’ll be discussing, but they need not be examined in detail before class unless someone’s reporting about them.

·       This schedule is subject to change.

Land Acknowledgment


The Washington State University Pullman campus is located on the homelands of the Nimíipuu (Nez Perce) Tribe and the Palus people. We acknowledge their presence here since time immemorial and recognize their continuing connection to the land, to the water, and to their ancestors.

Schedule of Assignments

Week Date Assignments
1 8/22 Introduction

Sign up for a major presentation and two “Article Expert” short presentations.

  8/24 Dickinson, “Safe in their Alabaster Chambers” and other poems (Canvas)

Reading Assignment: Read through some of the Dickinson poems and choose 1-2 that you’d like to work with. We will be looking for various versions of them on the web as part of our class on Thursday.


Emily Dickinson Archive:

Emily Dickinson Electronic Archive:

2 8/29 The Difference a Paragraph Makes: Nella Larsen’s Passing
Presentation: Nella Larsen
Presenter: Alli Riechman-Bennett

Larsen, Passing, pp. 162-275 (read entire novel)

  8/31 Authenticity and Appropriation I: “Sanctuary”

Passing, (continuing discussion)
Larsen, “Sanctuary,” pp. 21-27
Sheila Kaye-Smith, “Mrs. Adis” (Canvas0

·       Butler, Judith. From Bodies that Matter: On the Discursive Limits of “Sex,” in Feminist Literary Theory and Criticism, eds. Sandra M. Gilbert and Susan Gubar, W. W. Norton, 2007, pp. 963-971. (Canvas)

o   Article Expert: Anna Bushy

·       Larson, Surviving the Taint of Plagiarism: Nella Larsen’s “Sanctuary” and Sheila Kaye-Smith’s “Mrs. Adis” (Canvas)




3 9/5 Nella Larsen’s Quicksand, pp. 35-123
Presentation: Nella Larsen
Presenter: Chelsea Kopp

  9/7 Larsen, Quicksand, pp. 123-162

·       Ngai, Sianne. “Irritation.” Ugly Feelings. Oxford University Press, 2005, pp. 175-205.

o   Article Expert: Laiba Sehrish

·       McDowell, Deborah. From “The ‘Nameless . . . Shameful Impulse’: Sexuality in Nella Larsen’s Quicksand and Passing.Quicksand, edited by Carla Kaplan. Norton Critical Edition. W. W. Norton, 2020, 231-236.

o   Article Expert: Anna Bushy

4 9/12 Authenticity and Appropriation II: Mourning Dove
Presentation: Mourning Dove

Presenter: Anna Bushy

Mourning Dove, Cogewea, pp. 11-191

  9/14 Cogewea, continued

Cogewea, 192-285; Introduction, v-xxix.

·       Godfrey, Laura Gruber. “Mourning Dove’s Textual Frontier.” Arizona Quarterly, Volume 62, Number 1, Spring 2006, pp. 65-83. (Canvas)

·       Bond, Trevor James. “From Treasure Room to Archives: The McWhorter Papers and the State College of Washington.” Pacific Northwest Quarterly, Spring 2011, pp. 67-78. (Canvas)

o   Article Expert: Alli Riechman-Bennett

·       Teuton, Sean Kicummah. “The Indigenous Novel.” The Oxford Handbook of Indigenous American Literature, edited by James H. Cox and Daniel Heath Justice. Oxford University Press, 2014, pp. 318-332.

o   Article Expert: Chelsea Kopp

5 9/19


What makes a good critical edition?

·       Eggert, Paul. “Apparatus, Text, Interface: How to Read a Printed Critical Edition.” The Cambridge Companion to Textual Scholarship, edited by Neil Fraistat and Julia Flanders. Cambridge University Press, 2013, pp. 97-118. (Canvas)

o   Article expert: Sara Brock

·       Williams, William Proctor, and Craig S. Abbott. Chapter Five, “Textual Criticism,” An Introduction to Bibliographical and Textual Studies, 4th Edition. MLA, 2009, pp. 71-89. (Canvas)

  9/21 Digital Editions

Task: examining critical editions in print and online—Willa Cather, James Fenimore Cooper, Henry James, Theodore Dreiser, Mark Twain

·       Charles W. Chesnutt Project

·       Mark Twain Project

·       Walt Whitman Project

·       Willa Cather Project

·       Winnifred Eaton/Onoto Watanna Archive


Proposal for Paper 1 due (upload to Canvas)

6 9/26 Visit to MASC
  9/28 Theories of Editing

·       Greg, “The Rationale of Copy-Text,” Levy & Mole, pp. 125-137.

·       Tanselle, “The Editorial Problem of Final Authorial Intention,” Levy & Mole, pp. 139-155.

o   Article expert: Lucy Rickman

7 10/3 Editorial Choices: The Age of Innocence
Presentation: Edith Wharton’s Life and Works

Presenter: Lucy Rickman

Wharton, The Age of Innocence, pp. 3-155 (end of chapter XXV)

  10/5 The Age of Innocence, pp. 155-217 (end of novel)

·       Ehrhardt, “To Read These Pages is to Live Again’: The Historical Accuracy of The Age of Innocence,” 401-412.

o   Article expert: Alli Riechman-Bennett

·       Greeson, “Wharton’s Manuscript Outlines for The Age of Innocence: Three Versions,” 413-421.

o   Article expert: Sara Brock

·       Bauer, [Whiteness and the Powers of Darkness in The Age of Innocence], 461-482.

o   Article expert: Laiba Sehrish

8 10/10 Mapping Relationships & Contexts: The Custom of the Country
Presentation: Edith Wharton’s Literary World
Presenter: Sezin Zorlu

Wharton, Custom of the Country, pp. 1-313 (to ch. XXXIII)

  10/12 Wharton, The Custom of the Country, p. 313-409

·       “A Note on the Text,” pp. 34-36, and Appendix A, pp. 410-415.

·       Towheed, Shafquat. “When the Reading Had to Stop: Reading, Readers, and the Circulation of Texts in The Custom of the Country.” Edith Wharton’s The Custom of the Country: A Reassessment, edited by Laura Rattray. Pickering & Chatto, 2010, pp. 29-42. (Canvas)

·       Bourdieu, “The Field of Cultural Production,” in Levy & Mole, pp. 335-353.

o   Article expert: Sezin Zorlu

9 10/17 Guest Lecture (in person and Zoom): Dr. Melissa Homestead, University of Nebraska
Director of the Willa Cather Project

Reading Assignment: “The Composing, Editing, and Publication of Willa Cather’s Obscure Destinies Stories.” Scholarly Editing 38 (2017)

Meet in Bundy Reading Room (Avery 111)

  10/19 Digital Tools I: Transcription Workshop (Short Editing Project)

Workshop: Short Editing Project (Transcription)

·       Tropy

·       Transkribus

Scanning and OCR Workshop: Short Editing Project continued

10 10/24 Manuscript, Magazine, Book: The House of Mirth
Presentation: Edith Wharton’s Early Career
Presenter: Laiba Sehrish

The House of Mirth,  Book I

  10/26 The House of Mirth, Book II

·       Lewis, R. W. B. “The House of Mirth Biographically,” pp. 339-355, and Edith Wharton’s letters, pp. 287-291.

·       Dimock, Wai-Chee. “Debasing Exchange,” pp. 366-366.

o   Article Expert: Lucy Rickman

·       Ammons, “Edith Wharton and the Issue of Race,” pp. 367-377

o   Article Expert: Chelsea Kopp

·       Wagner, “The Conventional and the Queer,” pp. 402-408.

Proposal for Short Editing Project Due

11 10/31 Guest Speaker Dr. Paul Ohler, Kwantlen University
Associate Editor, Collected Works of Edith Wharton (CWEWh)
Editor, Volume
2: Short Stories I: 1891-1903

“Editing Edith Wharton’s Short Stories”

  11/2 Editing Edith Wharton: Practical Issues
Presentation: Editing Edith Wharton
Presenter: Sara Brock

·       Williams & Abbott, ch. 6 (Canvas)

Exhibit: Wharton, manuscript of The House of Mirth

12 11/7 Workshop: Short Editing Project (collation)
Guest Presenter: Nazua Idris

  11/9 Workshop: Short Editing Project (collation)

Proposal for Paper 2 Due

13 11/14 Digital Reading

·       McGann, “The Rationale of Hypertext,” Levy & Mole, pp. 459-474.

·       Hayles,”How We Read: Close, Hyper, Machine,” Levy & Mole, pp. 491-510.

·       Moretti, “Style, Inc. Reflections on Seven Thousand Titles,” Levy & Mole, pp. 525-540.

Short editing project due

  11/16 Digital Tools II: Showcase

·       Omeka

·       Neatline – Sezin Zorlu

·       Scalar – Sara Brock

·       Python – Lucy Rickman

·       StoryMaps – Anna Bushy

·       Voyant Tools – Laiba Sehrish

·       Textual Analysis with R – Alli Riechman-Bennett

·       Palladio

14 11/20 No Class: Thanksgiving Holiday
  11/24 No Class: Thanksgiving Holiday
15 11/28 Academic Publishing

·       McGann, Jerome. “What Do Scholars Want? “A New Republic of Letters: Memory and Scholarship in the Age of Digital Reproduction. Harvard University Press, 2014, pp. 127-136. (Canvas)

o   Article expert: Sezin Zorlu

·       Edith Wharton’s Library at The Mount:

Optional reading: Pierazzo, “Textual Scholarship and Text Encoding”

  11/30 Digital Project and Paper Workshop

Paper or Project 2 due

16 12/5 In-class conference
  12/7 In-class conference

Attendance and Participation. Attendance and good class participation are essential; missing significant amounts of class may affect your class participation grade. Pullman students are expected by WSU policy to be in person; however, COVID infections are increasing. If you’re not feeling well or believe that you might be contagious with this or another illness but would be able to participate via Zoom, please do so and email me.

Content Warning: The texts in this course reflect the cultural attitudes of their time, and they are presented in their original form. Although these materials are not graphic in terms of sexuality or violence when judged by twenty-first century standards, they may use offensive words, may depict scenes upsetting to current readers, or may represent race, gender, or violence in ways that that run counter to current standards, even when the intent is to protest racism, sexism, or other forms of social injustice. If offensive terms occur in a text, we will not read those harmful words aloud in class or use them in the discussion board.

Graded Work

Of these four projects (presentation, short editing project, short paper, final paper or project) any three can be on the same subject: for example, you might choose to rework your first paper into the extended paper, or you may wish to use your presentation and short editing project for the basis of that second paper. All four projects cannot be on the same exact subject, however.

  1. Presentation (20%): Each member of the class will give a 20-30-minute presentation at one point during the semester. This might take any one of several forms:
    1. preparing information about the author or authors assigned for that day and presenting a set of new ideas or questions for the class to consider;
    2. giving a new interpretation of the work; providing a contextual overview of an author or work; or
    3. analyzing and critiquing current critical perspectives.
    4. You will need to provide a brief handout for the class, preferably one that includes a short annotated bibliography of your sources, an outline, and relevant quotations or information from your sources. This handout must be uploaded to the Canvas Discussion Board and also posted to Assignments under Presentation.
  1. Short Paper (15%). The first paper is a conference-length (8-9 pages) treatment of a topic.
  2. Short Editing Project (20%). The short editing project involves taking a short piece of manuscript writing by an author and transcribing, editing, collating, and providing a context for it. More details will be available on the assignment page.
  3. Final Paper or Project (30%)The second can be either an editing project or an extended paper (15-25 pages; page limits are flexible) suitable for submitting to the journal of your choice or for using as the basis of a thesis or dissertation chapter.
  4. “Article Expert” (explained below) and class participation (15%).

Proposals and Responses. Since one of your professional responsibilities as scholars will be to submit proposals to conference, you’ll prepare a 100-200 word proposal for each of the papers you will write in this class. These will receive comments but not grades. You’ll also prepare a response to a classmate’s paper or project during the last two weeks of class, which you will then deliver as part of the conference-style presentations at the end of the course.

Late Papers and Extensions. Late papers are penalized at the rate of one letter grade (10 points) per class day late; a paper that would have received a “B” on the due date will receive a “C” if handed in on the next class day. Papers turned in after 2 class meetings will receive a 50/100 toward your class grade.

You have one automatic extension in this class, which means that your paper will be due on the next class day (in our case, a week). Just let me know ahead of time, and it’ll be fine—no penalty.

Presentations and Article Critiques

“Article Expert” Critiques. In addition to reading primary texts, we’ll be reading some classic but mostly current criticism on the works so that you’ll have a good sense of what approaches are being published now. Alternately, you’ll review current web sites on these authors.

Each week, two people will be responsible for preparing a brief summary (5 minutes) and critique of one article each.

You’ll post this to the “Article Experts” discussion board and to the “Article Experts” section under Assignments in Canvas.

These need not be terribly formal; their purpose is to allow the “article expert” to raise questions and discussion points about his or her article rather than do a formal presentation of it. You’ll all take turns being an “article expert,” but you won’t need to do this every week; you’ll be the “article expert” twice during the course of the semester.

Here’s what should be included.

  1. Brief summary of the article (can be in point form).
  2. Your thoughts on the article. What was its main contribution to understanding the work? Did it relate to other work in the field (If you know this)? Did it have any weaknesses?
  3. At least one question either that you had about the article or that the article inspired you to put to the class.

Remember these should be brief: No more than 5-7 minutes, and no more than about 350-450 words.

In-Class Conference. During the last week of class, you’ll present a conference-length version of your second paper to the rest of the class. The presentations at the end of the course will be based on the longer paper or project, which you’ll need to edit down to conference length.Student Learning Outcomes

At the end of this course, students should be able to Course Topics and Dates Addressing this Outcome Evaluation of Outcome
Understand how research is situated in a scholarly discourse embedded in the literature ·       Weekly “article expert” presentations

·       Weekly class discussion

·       Discussing journal submissions
Student responses to final paper

·       Formal assessment of discussion, participation, and responses

·       Preparation of article for paper presentation or article submission (informal)

·       Engagement (comments and questions) on articles in Perusall

Select appropriate methods to investigate research questions, including databases and bibliographies Research tools discussion
Proposal workshop
Feedback on proposals
Develop graduate-level writing and oral presentation skills through course assignments Oral presentation
Formal article-length paper
In-class conference presentation
Formal evaluation of oral presentation
Formal evaluation of paper
Synthesize research systematically Research tools discussion,
“Article expert” presentations
Formal assessment of discussion, participation, and responses
Understand the concepts behind basic tools used in creating digital humanities projects and editions “Digital Hours” Formal assessment of discussion, participation, and responses
Understand the theoretical issues and controversies current in digital humanities scholarship on editions “Digital Hours” and theoretical readings Formal assessment of discussion, participation, and responses

Grade Distributions

Paper 1 (Literary analysis) 15%
Paper or Project 2 (Final Project) 30%
Presentations 20%
Short Editing Project 20%
Attendance and participation (including “article expert” summaries) 15%



Plagiarism Policy (supplement to WSU Statement on Academic Integrity below). Plagiarism is the unacknowledged use of someone else’s words or ideas. This definition includes not only deliberately handing in someone else’s work as your own but failing to cite your sources, including Web pages and Internet sources.

Using AI (ChatGPT, etc.) to create written work or presentations, unless the assignment calls for it, runs counter to the spirit of inquiry and learning that this class strives to maintain; it’s considered plagiarism.

Plagiarism also includes handing in a paper that you have previously submitted or are currently submitting for another course.

  • For a first offense, any paper plagiarized in whole or in part will receive an “F” (0 points), and the incident must be reported to the Center for Community Standards. You will NOT be allowed to rewrite the plagiarized paper for a better grade.
  • Penalties for a second offense can range from failing the course to suspension from the university.

WSU Policy on Workload: For each hour of lecture equivalent, students should expect to have a minimum of two hours of work outside class. For this class, you should expect to work a minimum of 6 hours per week. Online Courses:  Students should expect to spend a minimum of 9 hours per week for each online 3-credit course, engaged in the following types of activities: reading, listening to/viewing media, discussion, or conversation in the LMS or other academic technology, conducting research, completing assignments and reviewing instructor feedback, studying for and completing assessments, etc.

WSU Policy on Email and Grade Postings: With rare exceptions, grades are only posted and emails answered during normal business hours (8-5, M-F) to comply with WSU’s directive of February 1, 2022: “Avoid sending emails, texts, and messages to employees during off hours or while on leave.”

WSU Academic Integrity Policy. Washington State University, a community dedicated to the advancement of knowledge, expects all students to adhere to high expectations of scholarship and the Standards of Conduct for Students. Potential violations of the Standards of Conduct for Students should be referred to the Center for Community Standards. The Center for Community Standards supports students, upholds their rights and responsibilities, and holds them accountable for behavior that doesn’t meet our community expectations.


University instructors have the authority, and are expected to intervene, in all situations where students may have violated academic integrity expectations. Where an instructor believes it is more likely than not that a student violated expectations, they have the authority to assign an academic consequence consistent with the academic integrity statement found in their course syllabus. The instructor is required to report the violation to the Center for Community Standards to provide an appropriate and fundamentally fair process for the student. More information regarding responding to academic integrity violations can be found at: integrity-process/.


Please contact the Center for Community Standards if you would like more specific information about the process. The Center for Community Standards can be reached at 509-335-4532 or


For additional policies, see the University Syllabus and this memorandum: Memorandum – 2023 Key Academic Policy Reminders[29].pdf

Instructor AI Policy: No part of this course was generated by AI. All prompts, lectures, and responses to your work are solely my work as your instructor and are not autogenerated. As students, you deserve a real voice from real readers, and my goal as your instructor is to provide that.

Additional policies are in Canvas.

Grading Policies and Criteria

I will use abbreviations as references to grammatical principles on your corrected papers. The abbreviations and accompanying explanations are available on the “Key to Comments” document at

A (Excellent)

  • Ideas and analysis. Greatly exceeds expectations and develops in a consistently excellent manner. Readers will learn something from this piece of writing. Ideas are original or especially insightful for the level of the class (i.e., an excellent paper in a 200-level course does not need to demonstrate the same level of originality and depth as an excellent paper in a 300- or 400-level course).
  • Organization. Organizational plan is clear, as is the thesis and purpose of the piece. Thesis is original and interesting.
  • Development and support. Develops its points effectively, logically, and in an original fashion. Assertions are supported by evidence. Paragraphs are unified, coherent, and complete.
  • Style. Sentences are fluent, graceful, and a pleasure to read. They are free from errors, although there may be a minor error in the piece.
  • Mechanics (spelling, usage, and punctuation such as commas, semicolons, and possessive apostrophes, quotation marks, and title punctuation). Papers will be almost entirely free from mechanical errors.
  • Audience. Has a clear understanding of audience as demonstrated by the paper’s use of tone and an appropriate level of diction.

B (Good)

  • Ideas and analysis. Exceeds expectations and develops in a good but perhaps predictable fashion. Paper will cover the most logical points about a piece of writing but may not provide as much new analysis. Ideas may be good but perhaps not as insightful or well developed as those for work in the “A” range.
  • Organization. Organization and thesis are logical but could be clearer. Thesis is solid but less innovative than in an exceptional paper. Some transitions may be missing.
  • Development and support. Includes a thesis idea that is generally supported by evidence and a logical order of paragraphs. Some unsupported generalizations may occur, or  some paragraphs may lack unity or support.
  • Style. Demonstrates correct sentence construction for the most part, although some sentences may be awkward or unclear. Papers will generally have few (1-2) or no comma splices, fragments, fused sentences, tense and agreement errors, or other major grammatical problems. Minor errors in grammar may occur.
  • Mechanics. One or two instances of an incorrect use of words, spelling errors, or punctuation errors such as missing possessive apostrophes may occur
  • Audience. Clear sense of individual voice and awareness of audience expectations. Level of diction may be uneven or somewhat inappropriate for the assignment.

C (Satisfactory or Acceptable)

  • Ideas and analysis. Meets expectations but does not go beyond them. May respond to the assignment in a satisfactory but predictable or superficial way. May have more plot summary than analysis.
  • Organization. Exhibits a discernable organization but may not provide a clear connection to the thesis. Thesis may be obvious or too general. Paragraphs may not follow the most logical order.
  • Development and support.Development may consist of obvious generalizations that only tell readers what they already know with limited support from the text.
  • Style. May demonstrate little sentence variety. Grammatical errors such as comma splices, fragments, agreement errors, vague or awkward phrasing may obscure the meaning of an otherwise good paper.
  • Mechanics. May contain odd word choices, consistent errors in punctuation, or problems with usage.
  • Audience. Voice and diction may be significantly inconsistent with audience expectations or the requirements of the assignment.

D (Deficient)

  • Ideas and analysis. Limited ideas and cursory development; does not meet expectations or the terms of the assignment on one or more dimensions.
  • Organization.Focus may be unclear or the essay may lack an arguable thesis. Paragraph order may be confusing. May lack adequate organization or sufficient support for its argument.
  • Development and support.Relies strongly on generalizations rather than support and may lack specific references to the text. Paragraphs may lack unity, coherence, and completeness. Paragraphs may be insufficiently developed.
  • Style. Contains many errors in sentence construction, including comma splices, fragments, fused sentences, agreement problems, and awkward sentences. Some parts may be difficult to read and interpret.
  • Mechanics. May demonstrate significant deficiencies in punctuation, word choice, and spelling.
  • Audience.Paper may demonstrate a consistently insufficient awareness of audience.

F (Unacceptable)

  • Ideas and analysis. Fails to meet expectations for ideas and analysis.May include too much plot summary or so many quotations that analysis is missing.
  • Organization. Focus many be diffuse or unclear. Sentences and paragraphs do not follow a logical order.
  • Development and support. Thesis may be missing.Generalizations may be used in place of analysis. Insufficient development for the requirements of the assignment.
  • Style. Serious errors such as comma splices, fragments, fused sentences, and agreement problems obscure meaning and make this paper inconsistent with college-level writing standards. A paper at this level may be difficult, frustrating, or confusing to read.
  • Mechanics. Contains numerous errors in grammar, spelling, and punctuation.
  • Audience.Serious problems with tone, diction, and sense of audience.
  • A paper will receive an “F” if it is plagiarized in whole or in part.