Assignment Prompt & Instructions
– 2 years ago
**files (2)**
– ## BookReviewGuidelines-History10128Spring2025O04N29.docx
– ## BookReviewGradingRubric.docx
**## BookReviewGuidelines-History10128Spring2025O04N29.docx**
History 101 – History of Western Civilization I
Book Review Guidelines
***Completed Reviews will be due via Canvas upload by 11:59p.m.**
**Sunday, April 27th***
Select a book about history relating to the period between approximately 3500 B.C. and A.D. 1600. Be careful not to choose a novel; a novel is a work of fiction. This assignment calls for the reading of an historical work of non-fiction. Once you have selected your book, please send me, via e-mail, the book’s title and the author’s name for approval (or simply bring the book with you to class for approval). The deadline for making your book selection is
Sunday, April 13th.
All book reviews must be done on a word processor, be double-spaced (using Times New Roman, 12 pt. font) and strictly adhere to length requirements – 5 to 7 pages in length (no more, no less). DO NOT put extra spaces between paragraphs. There is to be a one-inch margin on all sides (meaning top, bottom, & both sides). Notes should be parenthetical or line notes, as the following example from Friedreich Nietzsche’s
The Genealogy of Morals illustrates:
Nietzsche believed that “the priestly system of valuations” too easily branched off from
the aristocratic and developed into its antithesis. (591) – notice that following the punctuation (period), there is a space, followed by the page number(s) in brackets. Be careful about overusing quotations – this is your review – only use a few carefully selected words, phrases, or sentences which best impart the essence of what the author is trying to say.
Grammar, punctuation and spelling should be correct and follow standard usage. You are strongly urged to purchase and consult a “Style Guide;” the most widely used seems to be Kate L. Turabian’s
A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses and Dissertations. One should always have a good dictionary and thesaurus handy as well; most word processing programs have them built-in. Bibliographical information for your book should be located at the top of page one (just below your name) and be
**single-spaced** and include the book's full title (underlined), author's full name, place of publication, publisher, and year of publication (note: the bibliographic entry is the only part of the review where you should use single-spacing; the rest of your paper should be double-spaced). An example of a standard bibliographic entry appears as follows:
The Presidency of George Washington, by Forest McDonald. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press,
1974.
Your review should progress in the manner outlined below:
1)
**TOPIC** – what is the book about? – get to this quickly and clearly. In this section you may want to discuss the author’s background is that information is available to you. What are his or her qualifications?
2)
**THESIS** (and
_purpose_ and
_method_) – what is the author tying to prove (thesis) in writing this book (in other words, what is(are) the main point(s) the author is trying to get across to the reader); also, why is he or she writing this book (
_purpose_); and how is he or she going to prove the thesis (
_method_)?
Answers to the two questions above are often easily found in the Preface, Introduction, and the
Conclusion; however, sometimes authors do not organize their works properly, and or they are hiding their real intentions. In such cases one must dig a little deeper to find the author’s real intentions.
It is important that you
**fully analyze the author’s main contention (or contentions)**. Do not simply state what the thesis is; you must explain how the author has constructed his or her argument (or arguments). How has the author arrived at his or her conclusions? What evidence is offered to support the conclusions? (Analysis of thesis should be the focus of your review, so make sure you are thorough in your discussion)
3)
**SOURCES** – discuss the sources used in writing the book. Does the author use a wide variety of sources – are they mostly primary or secondary? Are controversial statements made by the author documented or otherwise verified? Examining the footnotes or endnotes as well as the bibliography or bibliographic essay on sources is important for this section.
4)
**ORGANIZATION** – how is the work organized; is it chronological or topical? You could include a statement here about the use of graphs, photos, maps etc. You also might comment here, but do not have to, on whether or not the organization appears logical to you.
5)
**EVALUATION** – this is where you give your opinion of the book's positives and negatives. Did you like it or not? Did the author successfully prove his or her thesis? Did he employ his sources well? Did the author contradict himself or herself (they often do). What suggestions do you have for further research? Is this a controversial book; does it attack an established school of thought on the subject in question; did it create a school of thought (what impact did it have on the understanding of the period)? Also comment on the literary quality. Was it written in a clear and interesting manner or did the work drag along?
Also keep in mind the audience for which the book review is being written. Different audiences require different types of reviews- For example, a review of a historical monograph published in the
Baltimore Sun for a general, non-professional audience will differ from one published in the
Journal of American History which is intended for professional historians. Your reviews should be written as if for professional historians, meaning a certain amount of historical knowledge can be assumed and things of concern to historians, such as argument, documentation, and the impact the book has on the particular field of history should be evaluated.
Make each word and sentence count – work on making it joy, instead of a labor, to read. Move clearly and concisely from point to point in English that flows (in doing so, be sure to avoid personal pronouns and contractions). Proofread your book review very carefully. Please beware that word processing spellcheckers miss many errors of spelling, grammar, syntax, punctuation, sentence structure, word choice, and word usage.
PLAGIARISM:
Plagiarism occurs when one copies directly from any source without providing quotation marks and the proper documentation to recognize the copied source, and when one paraphrases by using the ideas, patterns of presentation or wording from any source without the proper documentation to recognize the source. You can easily avoid plagiarism by using quotation marks to enclose what has been directly copied and citing sources that have been directly copied or paraphrased.
This assignment does NOT require ANY additional reading or research other than one approved book. In fact, you are expressly FORBIDDEN to use ANY other sources—especially from the Internet! Do this assignment on your own and write in your own words. Do NOT search the Internet for information about or reviews of your book. Do NOT use any websites, databases, book reviews, reader reviews, encyclopedias, magazines, newspapers, other books, other people’s papers, AI, or ANY other source for this assignment. To receive a passing grade on this assignment, you must place QUOTATION MARKS around words that you did not write yourself and provide a parenthetical note for every source of words or ideas other than your own (as outlined above).
**YOUR NAME ON YOUR BOOK REVIEW IS YOUR PROMISE THAT IT REPRESENTS 100% YOUR OWN INTELLECTUAL EFFORT UNLESS YOU EXPLICITLY ACKNOWLEDGE EVERY SOURCE.**
Please don’t hesitate to consult with me in advance if you are unclear about plagiarism or other violations of Academic Integrity. Even if you use multiple sources, change some words, move some sentences around, or add some words of your own, it is still (if you do not properly identify your source) plagiarism. Likewise, even if you claim that you did not mean to plagiarize when you plagiarized, or that you meant to include quotation marks and references but you forgot, or that your computer mysteriously omitted references, or that your friend typed your paper and omitted references without your knowledge, etc., etc., etc., it is still plagiarism and it is still a violation of academic integrity. The best way to avoid trouble is to follow instructions, set aside lots of time for this assignment, AVOID THE INTERNET, and restrict yourself to one approved book—nothing else.
**A SIMPLE RULE: IF YOU COPY AND PASTE ANY WORDS FROM ANY WEBSITE INTO YOUR BOOK REVIEW, YOU WILL GET AN “F” IN THIS COURSE.**
If you have any questions about the assignment, please do not hesitate to contact me.
**## BookReviewGradingRubric.docx**
**Book Review Grading Rubric**
| | | | | | | | |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| | **Points Possible** | **20 points** | **15 points** | **10 points** | **5 points** | **0 points** | **Points Received** |
| **Writing (40%)**: | | | | | | | |
| _Length_ | 10 | | | Paper is correct length | Paper up to a page too short or too long | Paper more than a page too short or too long | |
| _Formatting_ (font, margins, spacing bibliographic entry, citations) | 10 | | | Formatting Correct | 1-2 formatting elements (font, margins, etc.) incorrect | 3 or more formatting elements incorrect | |
| _Writing Style_<br>(well organized, effective use of transitions, main points separated into different paragraphs, sentence structure, wording, no repetition, no slang/personal pronouns/contractions | 10 | | | Well organized review. Writing flows well with good sentence structure and word choice. | A few awkward areas (poorly structured sentences, poor word choice in places), and perhaps some informal segments, but otherwise OK | Poorly organized, informal style with slang expressions; short choppy or run-on sentences; poor expression of thought; repetition | |
| _Grammar, Spelling, Punctuation_ | 10 | | | No errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation | A few errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation | Review has a number of misspellings, grammatical mistakes, and/or punctuation errors | |
| **Content (60%)**: | | | | | | | |
| _Introduction_ | 10 | | | Introduces reader briefly to the main goal of the book and provides information about the author | Introduction is unclear and may or may not provide information about the author | No Introduction | |
| _Thesis_<br>(Discussion/analysis of author’s main point/points) | 20 | Thorough analysis of the author’s main point(s), using many examples from the book | Discussion of thesis is good, but could use further elaboration<br>or<br>explanation | Thesis is provided, but little/no analysis is offered | Discussion of thesis is present but unclear and incomplete | There is no discussion of thesis | |
| _Organization_<br>(organization of the book, author’s use of supplementary materials) | 10 | | | Book’s organization clearly and thoroughly explained, with discussion of author’s use of supplementary materials where appropriate | Book’s organization is mentioned, but not fully explained; little/no discussion of supplementary materials | No discussion of organization | |
| _Sources_<br>(sources used by author) | 10 | | | Reviewer fully discusses author’s sources and type of citation, using specific examples from the book to explain | Reviewer mentions author’s sources, but does not fully explain them | No discussion of sources | |
| _Conclusion_<br>(Evaluation) | 10 | | | Complete conclusion effectively brings review to a close | Concluding paragraph is present, but incomplete (fails to fully bring the paper to a close) | No concluding paragraph | |
| **Late (minus points)** | | | | | | | |
| **Total Points** | | | | | | | |
**## BookReviewGradingRubric.docx**
**Book Review Grading Rubric**
| | | | | | | | |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| | **Points Possible** | **20 points** | **15 points** | **10 points** | **5 points** | **0 points** | **Points Received** |
| **Writing (40%)**: | | | | | | | |
| _Length_ | 10 | | | Paper is correct length | Paper up to a page too short or too long | Paper more than a page too short or too long | |
| _Formatting_ (font, margins, spacing bibliographic entry, citations) | 10 | | | Formatting Correct | 1-2 formatting elements (font, margins, etc.) incorrect | 3 or more formatting elements incorrect | |
| _Writing Style_<br>(well organized, effective use of transitions, main points separated into different paragraphs, sentence structure, wording, no repetition, no slang/personal pronouns/contractions | 10 | | | Well organized review. Writing flows well with good sentence structure and word choice. | A few awkward areas (poorly structured sentences, poor word choice in places), and perhaps some informal segments, but otherwise OK | Poorly organized, informal style with slang expressions; short choppy or run-on sentences; poor expression of thought; repetition | |
| _Grammar, Spelling, Punctuation_ | 10 | | | No errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation | A few errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation | Review has a number of misspellings, grammatical mistakes, and/or punctuation errors | |
| **Content (60%)**: | | | | | | | |
| _Introduction_ | 10 | | | Introduces reader briefly to the main goal of the book and provides information about the author | Introduction is unclear and may or may not provide information about the author | No Introduction | |
| _Thesis_<br>(Discussion/analysis of author’s main point/points) | 20 | Thorough analysis of the author’s main point(s), using many examples from the book | Discussion of thesis is good, but could use further elaboration<br>or<br>explanation | Thesis is provided, but little/no analysis is offered | Discussion of thesis is present but unclear and incomplete | There is no discussion of thesis | |
| _Organization_<br>(organization of the book, author’s use of supplementary materials) | 10 | | | Book’s organization clearly and thoroughly explained, with discussion of author’s use of supplementary materials where appropriate | Book’s organization is mentioned, but not fully explained; little/no discussion of supplementary materials | No discussion of organization | |
| _Sources_<br>(sources used by author) | 10 | | | Reviewer fully discusses author’s sources and type of citation, using specific examples from the book to explain | Reviewer mentions author’s sources, but does not fully explain them | No discussion of sources | |
| _Conclusion_<br>(Evaluation) | 10 | | | Complete conclusion effectively brings review to a close | Concluding paragraph is present, but incomplete (fails to fully bring the paper to a close) | No concluding paragraph | |
| **Late (minus points)** | | | | | | | |
| **Total Points** | | | | | | | |
**## BookReviewGuidelines-History10128Spring2025O04N29.docx**
History 101 – History of Western Civilization I
Book Review Guidelines
***Completed Reviews will be due via Canvas upload by 11:59p.m.**
**Sunday, April 27th***
Select a book about history relating to the period between approximately 3500 B.C. and A.D. 1600. Be careful not to choose a novel; a novel is a work of fiction. This assignment calls for the reading of an historical work of non-fiction. Once you have selected your book, please send me, via e-mail, the book’s title and the author’s name for approval (or simply bring the book with you to class for approval). The deadline for making your book selection is
Sunday, April 13th.
All book reviews must be done on a word processor, be double-spaced (using Times New Roman, 12 pt. font) and strictly adhere to length requirements – 5 to 7 pages in length (no more, no less). DO NOT put extra spaces between paragraphs. There is to be a one-inch margin on all sides (meaning top, bottom, & both sides). Notes should be parenthetical or line notes, as the following example from Friedreich Nietzsche’s
The Genealogy of Morals illustrates:
Nietzsche believed that “the priestly system of valuations” too easily branched off from
the aristocratic and developed into its antithesis. (591) – notice that following the punctuation (period), there is a space, followed by the page number(s) in brackets. Be careful about overusing quotations – this is your review – only use a few carefully selected words, phrases, or sentences which best impart the essence of what the author is trying to say.
Grammar, punctuation and spelling should be correct and follow standard usage. You are strongly urged to purchase and consult a “Style Guide;” the most widely used seems to be Kate L. Turabian’s
A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses and Dissertations. One should always have a good dictionary and thesaurus handy as well; most word processing programs have them built-in. Bibliographical information for your book should be located at the top of page one (just below your name) and be
**single-spaced** and include the book's full title (underlined), author's full name, place of publication, publisher, and year of publication (note: the bibliographic entry is the only part of the review where you should use single-spacing; the rest of your paper should be double-spaced). An example of a standard bibliographic entry appears as follows:
The Presidency of George Washington, by Forest McDonald. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press,
1974.
Your review should progress in the manner outlined below:
1)
**TOPIC** – what is the book about? – get to this quickly and clearly. In this section you may want to discuss the author’s background is that information is available to you. What are his or her qualifications?
2)
**THESIS** (and
_purpose_ and
_method_) – what is the author tying to prove (thesis) in writing this book (in other words, what is(are) the main point(s) the author is trying to get across to the reader); also, why is he or she writing this book (
_purpose_); and how is he or she going to prove the thesis (
_method_)?
Answers to the two questions above are often easily found in the Preface, Introduction, and the
Conclusion; however, sometimes authors do not organize their works properly, and or they are hiding their real intentions. In such cases one must dig a little deeper to find the author’s real intentions.
It is important that you
**fully analyze the author’s main contention (or contentions)**. Do not simply state what the thesis is; you must explain how the author has constructed his or her argument (or arguments). How has the author arrived at his or her conclusions? What evidence is offered to support the conclusions? (Analysis of thesis should be the focus of your review, so make sure you are thorough in your discussion)
3)
**SOURCES** – discuss the sources used in writing the book. Does the author use a wide variety of sources – are they mostly primary or secondary? Are controversial statements made by the author documented or otherwise verified? Examining the footnotes or endnotes as well as the bibliography or bibliographic essay on sources is important for this section.
4)
**ORGANIZATION** – how is the work organized; is it chronological or topical? You could include a statement here about the use of graphs, photos, maps etc. You also might comment here, but do not have to, on whether or not the organization appears logical to you.
5)
**EVALUATION** – this is where you give your opinion of the book's positives and negatives. Did you like it or not? Did the author successfully prove his or her thesis? Did he employ his sources well? Did the author contradict himself or herself (they often do). What suggestions do you have for further research? Is this a controversial book; does it attack an established school of thought on the subject in question; did it create a school of thought (what impact did it have on the understanding of the period)? Also comment on the literary quality. Was it written in a clear and interesting manner or did the work drag along?
Also keep in mind the audience for which the book review is being written. Different audiences require different types of reviews- For example, a review of a historical monograph published in the
Baltimore Sun for a general, non-professional audience will differ from one published in the
Journal of American History which is intended for professional historians. Your reviews should be written as if for professional historians, meaning a certain amount of historical knowledge can be assumed and things of concern to historians, such as argument, documentation, and the impact the book has on the particular field of history should be evaluated.
Make each word and sentence count – work on making it joy, instead of a labor, to read. Move clearly and concisely from point to point in English that flows (in doing so, be sure to avoid personal pronouns and contractions). Proofread your book review very carefully. Please beware that word processing spellcheckers miss many errors of spelling, grammar, syntax, punctuation, sentence structure, word choice, and word usage.
PLAGIARISM:
Plagiarism occurs when one copies directly from any source without providing quotation marks and the proper documentation to recognize the copied source, and when one paraphrases by using the ideas, patterns of presentation or wording from any source without the proper documentation to recognize the source. You can easily avoid plagiarism by using quotation marks to enclose what has been directly copied and citing sources that have been directly copied or paraphrased.
This assignment does NOT require ANY additional reading or research other than one approved book. In fact, you are expressly FORBIDDEN to use ANY other sources—especially from the Internet! Do this assignment on your own and write in your own words. Do NOT search the Internet for information about or reviews of your book. Do NOT use any websites, databases, book reviews, reader reviews, encyclopedias, magazines, newspapers, other books, other people’s papers, AI, or ANY other source for this assignment. To receive a passing grade on this assignment, you must place QUOTATION MARKS around words that you did not write yourself and provide a parenthetical note for every source of words or ideas other than your own (as outlined above).
**YOUR NAME ON YOUR BOOK REVIEW IS YOUR PROMISE THAT IT REPRESENTS 100% YOUR OWN INTELLECTUAL EFFORT UNLESS YOU EXPLICITLY ACKNOWLEDGE EVERY SOURCE.**
Please don’t hesitate to consult with me in advance if you are unclear about plagiarism or other violations of Academic Integrity. Even if you use multiple sources, change some words, move some sentences around, or add some words of your own, it is still (if you do not properly identify your source) plagiarism. Likewise, even if you claim that you did not mean to plagiarize when you plagiarized, or that you meant to include quotation marks and references but you forgot, or that your computer mysteriously omitted references, or that your friend typed your paper and omitted references without your knowledge, etc., etc., etc., it is still plagiarism and it is still a violation of academic integrity. The best way to avoid trouble is to follow instructions, set aside lots of time for this assignment, AVOID THE INTERNET, and restrict yourself to one approved book—nothing else.
**A SIMPLE RULE: IF YOU COPY AND PASTE ANY WORDS FROM ANY WEBSITE INTO YOUR BOOK REVIEW, YOU WILL GET AN “F” IN THIS COURSE.**
If you have any questions about the assignment, please do not hesitate to contact me.
**## BookReviewGradingRubric.docx**
**Book Review Grading Rubric**
| | | | | | | | |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| | **Points Possible** | **20 points** | **15 points** | **10 points** | **5 points** | **0 points** | **Points Received** |
| **Writing (40%)**: | | | | | | | |
| _Length_ | 10 | | | Paper is correct length | Paper up to a page too short or too long | Paper more than a page too short or too long | |
| _Formatting_ (font, margins, spacing bibliographic entry, citations) | 10 | | | Formatting Correct | 1-2 formatting elements (font, margins, etc.) incorrect | 3 or more formatting elements incorrect | |
| _Writing Style_<br>(well organized, effective use of transitions, main points separated into different paragraphs, sentence structure, wording, no repetition, no slang/personal pronouns/contractions | 10 | | | Well organized review. Writing flows well with good sentence structure and word choice. | A few awkward areas (poorly structured sentences, poor word choice in places), and perhaps some informal segments, but otherwise OK | Poorly organized, informal style with slang expressions; short choppy or run-on sentences; poor expression of thought; repetition | |
| _Grammar, Spelling, Punctuation_ | 10 | | | No errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation | A few errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation | Review has a number of misspellings, grammatical mistakes, and/or punctuation errors | |
| **Content (60%)**: | | | | | | | |
| _Introduction_ | 10 | | | Introduces reader briefly to the main goal of the book and provides information about the author | Introduction is unclear and may or may not provide information about the author | No Introduction | |
| _Thesis_<br>(Discussion/analysis of author’s main point/points) | 20 | Thorough analysis of the author’s main point(s), using many examples from the book | Discussion of thesis is good, but could use further elaboration<br>or<br>explanation | Thesis is provided, but little/no analysis is offered | Discussion of thesis is present but unclear and incomplete | There is no discussion of thesis | |
| _Organization_<br>(organization of the book, author’s use of supplementary materials) | 10 | | | Book’s organization clearly and thoroughly explained, with discussion of author’s use of supplementary materials where appropriate | Book’s organization is mentioned, but not fully explained; little/no discussion of supplementary materials | No discussion of organization | |
| _Sources_<br>(sources used by author) | 10 | | | Reviewer fully discusses author’s sources and type of citation, using specific examples from the book to explain | Reviewer mentions author’s sources, but does not fully explain them | No discussion of sources | |
| _Conclusion_<br>(Evaluation) | 10 | | | Complete conclusion effectively brings review to a close | Concluding paragraph is present, but incomplete (fails to fully bring the paper to a close) | No concluding paragraph | |
| **Late (minus points)** | | | | | | | |
| **Total Points** | | | | | | | |
**## BookReviewGuidelines-History10128Spring2025O04N29.docx**
History 101 – History of Western Civilization I
Book Review Guidelines
***Completed Reviews will be due via Canvas upload by 11:59p.m.**
**Sunday, April 27th***
Select a book about history relating to the period between approximately 3500 B.C. and A.D. 1600. Be careful not to choose a novel; a novel is a work of fiction. This assignment calls for the reading of an historical work of non-fiction. Once you have selected your book, please send me, via e-mail, the book’s title and the author’s name for approval (or simply bring the book with you to class for approval). The deadline for making your book selection is
Sunday, April 13th.
All book reviews must be done on a word processor, be double-spaced (using Times New Roman, 12 pt. font) and strictly adhere to length requirements – 5 to 7 pages in length (no more, no less). DO NOT put extra spaces between paragraphs. There is to be a one-inch margin on all sides (meaning top, bottom, & both sides). Notes should be parenthetical or line notes, as the following example from Friedreich Nietzsche’s
The Genealogy of Morals illustrates:
Nietzsche believed that “the priestly system of valuations” too easily branched off from
the aristocratic and developed into its antithesis. (591) – notice that following the punctuation (period), there is a space, followed by the page number(s) in brackets. Be careful about overusing quotations – this is your review – only use a few carefully selected words, phrases, or sentences which best impart the essence of what the author is trying to say.
Grammar, punctuation and spelling should be correct and follow standard usage. You are strongly urged to purchase and consult a “Style Guide;” the most widely used seems to be Kate L. Turabian’s
A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses and Dissertations. One should always have a good dictionary and thesaurus handy as well; most word processing programs have them built-in. Bibliographical information for your book should be located at the top of page one (just below your name) and be
**single-spaced** and include the book's full title (underlined), author's full name, place of publication, publisher, and year of publication (note: the bibliographic entry is the only part of the review where you should use single-spacing; the rest of your paper should be double-spaced). An example of a standard bibliographic entry appears as follows:
The Presidency of George Washington, by Forest McDonald. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press,
1974.
Your review should progress in the manner outlined below:
1)
**TOPIC** – what is the book about? – get to this quickly and clearly. In this section you may want to discuss the author’s background is that information is available to you. What are his or her qualifications?
2)
**THESIS** (and
_purpose_ and
_method_) – what is the author tying to prove (thesis) in writing this book (in other words, what is(are) the main point(s) the author is trying to get across to the reader); also, why is he or she writing this book (
_purpose_); and how is he or she going to prove the thesis (
_method_)?
Answers to the two questions above are often easily found in the Preface, Introduction, and the
Conclusion; however, sometimes authors do not organize their works properly, and or they are hiding their real intentions. In such cases one must dig a little deeper to find the author’s real intentions.
It is important that you
**fully analyze the author’s main contention (or contentions)**. Do not simply state what the thesis is; you must explain how the author has constructed his or her argument (or arguments). How has the author arrived at his or her conclusions? What evidence is offered to support the conclusions? (Analysis of thesis should be the focus of your review, so make sure you are thorough in your discussion)
3)
**SOURCES** – discuss the sources used in writing the book. Does the author use a wide variety of sources – are they mostly primary or secondary? Are controversial statements made by the author documented or otherwise verified? Examining the footnotes or endnotes as well as the bibliography or bibliographic essay on sources is important for this section.
4)
**ORGANIZATION** – how is the work organized; is it chronological or topical? You could include a statement here about the use of graphs, photos, maps etc. You also might comment here, but do not have to, on whether or not the organization appears logical to you.
5)
**EVALUATION** – this is where you give your opinion of the book's positives and negatives. Did you like it or not? Did the author successfully prove his or her thesis? Did he employ his sources well? Did the author contradict himself or herself (they often do). What suggestions do you have for further research? Is this a controversial book; does it attack an established school of thought on the subject in question; did it create a school of thought (what impact did it have on the understanding of the period)? Also comment on the literary quality. Was it written in a clear and interesting manner or did the work drag along?
Also keep in mind the audience for which the book review is being written. Different audiences require different types of reviews- For example, a review of a historical monograph published in the
Baltimore Sun for a general, non-professional audience will differ from one published in the
Journal of American History which is intended for professional historians. Your reviews should be written as if for professional historians, meaning a certain amount of historical knowledge can be assumed and things of concern to historians, such as argument, documentation, and the impact the book has on the particular field of history should be evaluated.
Make each word and sentence count – work on making it joy, instead of a labor, to read. Move clearly and concisely from point to point in English that flows (in doing so, be sure to avoid personal pronouns and contractions). Proofread your book review very carefully. Please beware that word processing spellcheckers miss many errors of spelling, grammar, syntax, punctuation, sentence structure, word choice, and word usage.
PLAGIARISM:
Plagiarism occurs when one copies directly from any source without providing quotation marks and the proper documentation to recognize the copied source, and when one paraphrases by using the ideas, patterns of presentation or wording from any source without the proper documentation to recognize the source. You can easily avoid plagiarism by using quotation marks to enclose what has been directly copied and citing sources that have been directly copied or paraphrased.
This assignment does NOT require ANY additional reading or research other than one approved book. In fact, you are expressly FORBIDDEN to use ANY other sources—especially from the Internet! Do this assignment on your own and write in your own words. Do NOT search the Internet for information about or reviews of your book. Do NOT use any websites, databases, book reviews, reader reviews, encyclopedias, magazines, newspapers, other books, other people’s papers, AI, or ANY other source for this assignment. To receive a passing grade on this assignment, you must place QUOTATION MARKS around words that you did not write yourself and provide a parenthetical note for every source of words or ideas other than your own (as outlined above).
**YOUR NAME ON YOUR BOOK REVIEW IS YOUR PROMISE THAT IT REPRESENTS 100% YOUR OWN INTELLECTUAL EFFORT UNLESS YOU EXPLICITLY ACKNOWLEDGE EVERY SOURCE.**
Please don’t hesitate to consult with me in advance if you are unclear about plagiarism or other violations of Academic Integrity. Even if you use multiple sources, change some words, move some sentences around, or add some words of your own, it is still (if you do not properly identify your source) plagiarism. Likewise, even if you claim that you did not mean to plagiarize when you plagiarized, or that you meant to include quotation marks and references but you forgot, or that your computer mysteriously omitted references, or that your friend typed your paper and omitted references without your knowledge, etc., etc., etc., it is still plagiarism and it is still a violation of academic integrity. The best way to avoid trouble is to follow instructions, set aside lots of time for this assignment, AVOID THE INTERNET, and restrict yourself to one approved book—nothing else.
**A SIMPLE RULE: IF YOU COPY AND PASTE ANY WORDS FROM ANY WEBSITE INTO YOUR BOOK REVIEW, YOU WILL GET AN “F” IN THIS COURSE.**
If you have any questions about the assignment, please do not hesitate to contact me.
**## BookReviewGradingRubric.docx**
**Book Review Grading Rubric**
| | | | | | | | |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| | **Points Possible** | **20 points** | **15 points** | **10 points** | **5 points** | **0 points** | **Points Received** |
| **Writing (40%)**: | | | | | | | |
| _Length_ | 10 | | | Paper is correct length | Paper up to a page too short or too long | Paper more than a page too short or too long | |
| _Formatting_ (font, margins, spacing bibliographic entry, citations) | 10 | | | Formatting Correct | 1-2 formatting elements (font, margins, etc.) incorrect | 3 or more formatting elements incorrect | |
| _Writing Style_<br>(well organized, effective use of transitions, main points separated into different paragraphs, sentence structure, wording, no repetition, no slang/personal pronouns/contractions | 10 | | | Well organized review. Writing flows well with good sentence structure and word choice. | A few awkward areas (poorly structured sentences, poor word choice in places), and perhaps some informal segments, but otherwise OK | Poorly organized, informal style with slang expressions; short choppy or run-on sentences; poor expression of thought; repetition | |
| _Grammar, Spelling, Punctuation_ | 10 | | | No errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation | A few errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation | Review has a number of misspellings, grammatical mistakes, and/or punctuation errors | |
| **Content (60%)**: | | | | | | | |
| _Introduction_ | 10 | | | Introduces reader briefly to the main goal of the book and provides information about the author | Introduction is unclear and may or may not provide information about the author | No Introduction | |
| _Thesis_<br>(Discussion/analysis of author’s main point/points) | 20 | Thorough analysis of the author’s main point(s), using many examples from the book | Discussion of thesis is good, but could use further elaboration<br>or<br>explanation | Thesis is provided, but little/no analysis is offered | Discussion of thesis is present but unclear and incomplete | There is no discussion of thesis | |
| _Organization_<br>(organization of the book, author’s use of supplementary materials) | 10 | | | Book’s organization clearly and thoroughly explained, with discussion of author’s use of supplementary materials where appropriate | Book’s organization is mentioned, but not fully explained; little/no discussion of supplementary materials | No discussion of organization | |
| _Sources_<br>(sources used by author) | 10 | | | Reviewer fully discusses author’s sources and type of citation, using specific examples from the book to explain | Reviewer mentions author’s sources, but does not fully explain them | No discussion of sources | |
| _Conclusion_<br>(Evaluation) | 10 | | | Complete conclusion effectively brings review to a close | Concluding paragraph is present, but incomplete (fails to fully bring the paper to a close) | No concluding paragraph | |
| **Late (minus points)** | | | | | | | |
| **Total Points** | | | | | | | |