Topic is communicated accurately and effectively with clear and appropriate purpose and focus
Research question is clearly stated, well-focused and consistently connected to discussion
Methodological choices (frame analysis, secondary interviews) are generally appropriate and relevant to the RQ
Methodology is described implicitly rather than explicitly—would benefit from a concise statement of approach
Range of sources is modest, with limited engagement with scholarly film theory beyond basic terminology
Clear subject knowledge of Indonesian cinema history and film-language elements
Mostly accurate use of film terminology integrated into analysis
Relevant sources used to frame historical overview and character dynamics
Source application sometimes serves background rather than deep argumentation
Citation accuracy is uneven
Occasional informal phrasing and repetition of general terms (e.g., “unique & stylised set design”)
Detailed comparative analysis linking mise-en-scène and cinematography to thematic family struggle
Generally well-supported conclusions drawn from filmic evidence
Organized discussion with coherent return to the research question
Several descriptive passages lack deeper significance and critical evaluation
Alternative interpretations and methodological limitations are seldom acknowledged
Counter-arguments and evaluative reflection on research process are limited
Clearly appropriate structure with all required elements (title page, ToC, numbered sections, works cited)
Consistent formatting (font, page numbers, labelled figures) under 4000 words
Headings and images integrated effectively
Table of contents lacks page numbers for quick navigation
Minor spacing issues in the Works Cited and occasional truncated paragraphs
