Topic is communicated accurately and effectively with a clear and focused purpose throughout the investigation.
Research question is explicitly stated, well framed, and consistently linked to the analysis.
Methodology demonstrates an appropriate and varied range of relevant sources and methods with clear evidence of informed selection.
Minor digressions into broader genre history occasionally dilute the razor-sharp focus on editing techniques.
The coding process in the qualitative content analysis lacks detailed description of categories and reliability measures.
Demonstrates excellent subject knowledge with accurate and consistent use of key terminology (e.g., ‘fragmented cutting’, ‘match cut’, ‘diegetic pacing’).
Effectively applies theory—formalist and psychoanalytic—to primary film examples, showing deep understanding.
Source material from primary texts and interviews is woven seamlessly into the argument to support technical discussion.
Overreliance on some popular web sources (blogs, Prezi) slightly undermines scholarly depth.
Certain technical terms (e.g. “mirror gags”) are introduced without precise definition or peer-reviewed citation.
Research is extensive and consistently relevant, drawing on primary scenes, editor interviews, and appropriate theoretical texts.
Analysis is rigorous, linking editing techniques directly to psychological effects and supported by time-codes and production commentary.
Evaluation is critical, acknowledging methodological limitations and proposing further audience-based measures, demonstrating mature critical reflection.
Occasional leaps in reasoning (e.g. Freud connections) would benefit from additional empirical support.
Comparative claims regarding cultural background effects lack specific theoretical frameworks or examples to fully substantiate them.
Structure is impeccably organized with all required elements (title page, contents, headings, figure labels, bibliography) clearly presented.
Layout and formatting (pagination, consistent font, figure captions) are applied correctly and enhance readability.
A few minor layout glitches (empty cells in the contents table, inconsistent figure placement) remain.
Some caption formatting inconsistencies (font size, punctuation) should be standardized.