Z652 Final Project Proposal — Rubric

Assesses clarity, feasibility, and scholarly grounding of the proposed prototype digital library.

Criteria	4 – Exceptional	3 – Good	2 – Acceptable	1 – Unacceptable
Completeness and Relevance	Proposal responds fully to all eight prompts with clear, relevant, and specific detail that demonstrates understanding of the assignment’s goals.	Responds to all prompts with generally clear and relevant detail; minor omissions or vague sections.	Responds to most prompts but with limited detail, clarity, or relevance to project goals.	Many prompts unanswered or addressed with minimal or irrelevant detail.
Project Goals and Research Questions	Goals and/or research question(s) are explicit, significant, and well-focused; scope is realistic for the course timeline.	Goals/question(s) are clear and relevant; scope generally appropriate with minor adjustments needed.	Goals/question(s) vague or overly broad; scope loosely appropriate.	Goals/question(s) absent or unclear; scope unrealistic or unrelated.
Engagement with Course Concepts & Scholarship	Strong rationale grounded in digital library principles (metadata, interoperability, usability, preservation, access) and relevant scholarship; clearly linked to user/community needs.	Some rationale grounded in course concepts and literature.	Limited or superficial connection to course concepts or literature.	No meaningful connection to course concepts or relevant scholarship.
Preliminary Plan, Standards, and Tools	Detailed, feasible plan of implementation; identifies and justifies relevant standards (e.g., Dublin Core, MODS, IIIF, controlled vocabularies) and tools.	Plan includes some standards/tools with general justification.	Minimal plan; standards/tools mentioned but not explained.	No implementation plan; standards/tools absent.
Collections/Data Identification	Clearly describes collections or datasets to be used; selection criteria and acquisition/processing steps are well-justified.	Collections/data identified with some rationale provided.	Collections/data described only in general terms; rationale unclear.	No collections/data identified.
Copyright and Metadata Awareness	Copyright status is addressed with reference to specific holders, dates, or public domain guidelines. Metadata sources and challenges are realistically assessed. Student shows awareness of metadata implications for discovery, reuse, and access.	Copyright and metadata issues addressed with some detail; minor gaps in accuracy or scope.	Mentions copyright and/or metadata issues but with limited detail or understanding.	No meaningful discussion of copyright or metadata issues.
Professionalism & Mechanics	Well-organized, polished, error-free writing; citations and attributions accurate.	Mostly clear with minor issues in writing or citations.	Writing needs revision; citations incomplete or inconsistent.	Poorly written; citations absent or incorrect.