Topic and purpose are communicated clearly with precise historical scope and consistent signposting.
Research question is well‐focused, stated prominently, and maintained throughout.
Use of headings, table of contents, and repeated references to the RQ demonstrate strong framing.
Methodology shows limited evidence of critical source selection, relying on uneven journalistic/web sources.
Lacks deeper engagement with peer‐reviewed film theory to strengthen source selection.
Demonstrates excellent use of technical terminology (mise‐en‐scène, framing, diegetic sound) accurately and consistently.
Shows clear knowledge of socio‐cultural history with well‐integrated contextual links (e.g., Delhi rape case).
Analysis occasionally remains general and lacks deeper engagement with feminist or film‐studies scholarship.
Some bibliographic details are incomplete, and occasional imprecision (‘family mortality’ misuse).
Research draws on a purposeful mix of primary films, sociological data, and scholarly commentary, all relevant to the RQ.
Analysis often links cinematic technique (framing, sound, mise‐en‐scène) to evolving gender ideology in a coherent way.
Argument can be descriptive at times, reiterating obvious points rather than deep insight.
Evaluation of limitations (selection bias, genre differences) is brief and lacks penetrating critical reflection.
All required structural elements (abstract, TOC, headings, figure numbers, works cited) are present and logically ordered.
Title, word count, pagination, and MLA‐style citations are consistently applied.
Occasional formatting slips (image alignment, long URLs) interrupt visual flow.
Abrupt transitions (e.g., DDLJ background ends mid‐sentence) and isolated timecodes detract from readability.