Our rubrics are designed to assist artisans who want to enter A&S projects into shows and competitions. They are also designed for judges as guides to scoring entries. Anyone is welcome to use our rubrics, they are not reserved for Kingdom events and are meant to help standardize expectations throughout the Sylvan realm. If everyone knows what to expect while working on their projects, and expectations are set for entrants and judges, then we should arrive at an objective scoring platform throughout our Kingdom, with some room for subjective opinion as well. Related page: SCA Research Papers.

PDF version

Category 1 2 3 4 5 6
How complex and original is the presented information?
How effective is the supporting information?
The methodology used?
• The paper covers an easy to research topic.
• Evidence is sparse, with an unconvincing argument.
• The paper covers an easy to research topic.
• Evidence is somewhat reliable but lacks coherence.
• Paper shows some complexity, deals with a slightly difficult topic or barrier.
• Evidence is reliable, attempts to connect multiple ideas.
• Paper shows moderate complexity.
• Evidence starts to build a coherent body of evidence; conjectures are mostly supported.
• Paper shows a high level of complexity, and deals with moderately difficult topics/barriers.
• Solid body of evidence, connected by good logic.
• Paper shows a high level of complexity, dealing with difficult barriers, adding original sources.
• Solid body of evidence, connected by a solid chain of excellent logic.
How is the information supported with examples and (new to the subject) data?
Is it placed in historical context?
• Paper rephrases research completed by others.
• Paper gives minimal historical/cultural context.
• Paper mostly rephrases, with some new analysis pulled from others’ research.
• Inconsistent historical context.
• Paper is a meta analysis of many previous research materials to determine new analysis of the topic.
• A good attempt at historical context.
• Paper uses some firsthand knowledge, as well as incorporating work of others.
• Historical context is correct, but might be brief.
• An actual, first hand investigation, supported by relevant research.
• Paper does a good job at placing topic in historical/cultural context.
• A first hand investigation into an unusual subject, adding original research and/or sources.
• Paper clearly places topic in historical context in detail.
Historical Accuracy
How familiar is the author with relevant scholarship and makes critical assessment of the authority & significance of the sources used?
• The topic is somewhat pre-1650 appropriate.
• Sources are nearly all indirect and it is unclear if the author is familiar with relevant scholarship.
• The topic is somewhat pre-1650 appropriate.
• Sources are nearly all indirect; quality of sources is limited.
• The topic is mostly pre-1650 appropriate.
• The sources are a mix of indirect and scholarly; quality of sources is variable.
• The topic is pre-1600 appropriate.
• The sources are mostly direct and scholarly, with an occasional indirect source; quality of sources is generally good.
• The topic is pre-1600 appropriate.
• A good mix of direct and scholarly sources; quality of sources is good.
• The topic is perfectly pre-1600 appropriate
• Great mix of direct and scholarly sources, might include unique or original research.
Quality of Technique
Is the paper written in a clear and articulate manner?
Does it have a logical format, an effective layout, a clear and consistent citation system?
• The paper is difficult to follow, with unexplained quotes.
• Minimal attempt at formatting, with poor citation and no bibliography.
• Paper is somewhat difficult to follow.
• Minimal formatting, inconsistent citation and an incomplete bibliography.
• Paper is somewhat easy to read and understand.
• Spotty formatting, cites most sources with a limited bibliography
• Paper is readable, incorporates translations & quotes as needed.
• Adequate formatting and citation, bibliography might include hyperlinks.
• Paper is easy to read, incorporates translations & quotes.
• Overall good balance of
text and images; consistent citations, bibliography includes links and illustration sources.
• Fascinating read, incorporates translations & quotes seamlessly; format is carefully thought out and enhances understanding.
• Bibliography perhaps annotated.
Quality of Writing
Is the information organized logically?
Does the author clarify and elaborate the main topic or theory, and establishes it in context of other related topics/theories?
• Paper is unclear, with a minimal attempt at coherence or articulation of ideas.
• Paper has little exploration of the main topic, and does not establish it within a broader context.
• Paper is hard to read, only parts are coherent and articulate – has no introduction.
• Paper elaborates on the main topic in an unclear way.
• Paper is mostly coherent and articulate – includes some sort of introduction.
• Some aspects of topic explored, discusses some related topics.
• Nearly all of the paper is coherent and articulate – adequate first impression (intro).
• Many aspects of topic explored, discusses related topics / theories.
• Paper is easy to read and understand, it is coherent and articulate – quite engaging first impression.
• Provides some significant detail, discusses most important related topics / theories.
• Very clearly written and highly articulate, with a great first impression; the reader wants to read more.
• Provides extensive detail, extensively discusses multiple related topics.


Main Rubrics Page | Material CultureLive Performance | Youth Projects


Nov 25, 2021 @ 4:23 pm