Rubric: Thoroughness of research: 25 Inclusion of required information: 25 Citations, etc.: 25 General writing: 25 &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Matthew Lane -- Purgatory Chasm "Guidebook Entry" Excellent work. You have found the required information and put together a very readable and enticing guidebook entry about the chasm. There are a few places where your choice of words borders on the overstatement I warned about: "timeless wonder" in the first sentence, for instance and "amazing" in the last sentence of the first paragraph. But overall, this is very polished. The only criticism I have is that you have not documented sources for some of the facts and ideas you present. (You start doing this later with references to the bibliography, but it's not consistent at the start, particularly for items about the history of the park.) Thoroughness of research: 25 Inclusion of required information: 25 Citations, etc.: 23 General writing: 24 Total: 97/100 &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Logan Milliken -- Purgatory Chasm "Guidebook Entry" I think you overdid some of the language describing the chasm. There are also a few small writing issues here. But otherwise this is very good work. You have found the required information and put together a very readable guidebook entry about the chasm with good citations of your sources. Here are several places where your choice of words sends you toward the overstatement I warned about in the prompt, though -- the "place of beauty and fascination" in the first, sentence and the "captivating sights will leave you in awe" in the last sentence of the first paragraph. A couple of mechanical things: (1) You are consistently confusing "its" (possessive) and "it's" (contraction for "it is"). Make sure you understand the difference and pick the right one. (2) At the start of the last paragraph: "Regardless of how the Chasm was created they're is no denying ..." should be "there is no denying." Again make sure you understand the difference between "their," "there," and "they're" = "they are" and be sure you are using the right one. Thoroughness of research: 25 Inclusion of required information: 25 Citations, etc.: 25 General writing: 21 Total: 96/100 &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Christian Boire -- Purgatory Chasm "Guidebook Entry" The first two pages of your essay on Purgatory Chasm are very good, but the explanations of the theories of the formation of the chasm are not quite at the same level. It seems as though you struggled to describe the different proposed processes that could have formed this site and your writing suffered in the process. Starting at the bottom of page 2: "point the theories to be false" sounds a bit strange. I think "call those theories into question" might be a more accurate way to say it. At the top of page 3: "His idea of erosion does seem viable, however the constant waves would create a smoother surface that the chasm does not show any sign of." The second part of the sentence is contradicting the first part, so this just sounds confused the way you said it. Give the reader more of an indication of how these statements are related. I think you meant something like "Although the idea of erosion might seem possible, the rocks in the chasm do not show the smoother surfaces that would be created by erosion." Note the "although" signals the contrast, and the "might seem" shows that you (or your source) are ultimately not agreeing with that possible explanation. First full paragraph at the top of page 3: "The theory for the Chasm is Prof. W.O. Crosby and his son Irving B. Crosby is that a “disturbance” in the “earth’s crust” such as an earthquake caused two “master joints” to fall and give rise to the chasm. You don't want "is" there -- the theory isn't the two Crosbys(!) The next sentence is too terse. Explain what it means to say the chasm is "disoriented" and why glacial drift is impossible. Middle of page 3: The name is Lougee not Loujee. What does "complicated transporation of how the water got to the Chasm" mean? Thoroughness of research: 25 Inclusion of required information: 21 (explanations of the theories are rather garbled) Citations, etc.: 25 General writing: 21 Total: 92/100 &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Kyle Copeland -- Purgatory Chasm "Guidebook Entry" Your paper lists only one source -- a web site developed by Danni Lu and Irene Terpstra, who appear to be college (or perhaps even high school) students. There's a natural question to ask here -- how do you know what they are saying is correct? The only way to answer a question like that is to check with other sources and it does not look as though you did that. If you did, those other sources should be listed in your paper. In your first paragraph, I think you went slightly overboard with the sort of language I warned you about in the assignment: "miraculous structure," "unique landform," "intense eloquence," etc. The total acreage of the park is also only about 100 acres, not the 500 acres you said. What did you mean by "antecedent events seem to shape how the park got its name"? What antecedent events? The genesis of the name is probably just the impressions of the first Europeans to see the chasm -- it is a natural version of the sort of chaotic and inhospitable landscape that people tended to picture as part of hell or purgatory. Toward the top of page 2, for this reason, "immaculate beauty of the cliff-like structures" is a slightly odd choice of words. At the top of page 3, be careful about the distinction between a "theory" and a "theorem" -- those words are not synonyms and "theorem" is not correct in referring to a proposed explanation for a geological formation. There are a number of small issues about word choices and mechanics. For instance, toward bottom of page 2, what does it mean to say that "many of the theories about the formation held good foundations for many years"? Do you mean that people believed them? Thoroughness of research: 20 (see above) Inclusion of required information: 24 (not all correct) Citations, etc.: 20 (the web page you used as your source identifies the authors; they should be included in the citation) General writing: 20 Total: 84/100 &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Connor Degenhardt -- Purgatory Chasm "Guidebook entry" Very good work. You have found the required information and put together a very readable and enticing guidebook entry about the chasm. There are a few places where your choice of words borders on the overstatement I warned about: "geological wonder" in the first sentence, for instance and "astounding" in the last sentence of the last paragraph. But overall, this is good and reasonably polished. There are a couple of relatively small issues with your citations of sources, though. (1) The dabbler.org page you used as a source identifies its authors (Danni Lu and Irene Terpstra). They should be included in the citation. (2) It would be better to include the URL's for the web pages you used in the list of Works Cited as well as, or even instead of, in the footnotes themselves. The listing "Purgatory Chasm." Purgatory Chasm. N.p., n.d. Web, in the Works Cited, for instance, is completely uninformative(!) Thoroughness of research: 25 Inclusion of required information: 25 Citations, etc.: 22 General writing: 22 Total: 94/100 &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Joe Lang -- Purgatory Chasm "Guidebook entry" Most of the comments I have here are about small things; the paper as a whole is quite good. (1) Spell out one-syllable number words: "six trails and five rock formations" (end of paragraph 1) (2) You're missing a number of apostrophes for possessives: Devil's Coffin, etc. (3) "incredibly unique" at bottom of page 1 is an example of the kind of overstatement I warned about in the writing prompt. (4) The citations you give to things at "libguides.holycross.edu" are actually scanned versions of items that appeared originally in print. The citations should be to the original print items so that someone looking up your sources could find them even if they did not have access to the HC library resources you were using. (5) The dabbler.org page you used as a source identifies its authors (Danni Lu and Irene Terpstra). They should be included in the citation. (6) "most respectable theory" at the bottom of page 3 sounds odd. Instead of "respectable," I think you mean something like "currently accepted" (and then delete the "to date" later in that sentence). Thoroughness of research: 25 Inclusion of required information: 25 Citations, etc.: 20 General writing: 22 Total: 92/100 &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Eve Smith -- Purgatory Chasm "Guidebook Entry" Excellent work. You have found the required information and put together a very readable and enticing guidebook entry about the chasm. For the most part, you have successfully avoided the overstatements that I cautioned you about in the writing prompt. There are a couple of small points I want to bring to your attention: 1) You say 180 acres as the area of the state park but every other source I have seen for this, including a list of state parks generated by the state agency in Massachusetts that runs them all says the Purgatory Chasm is 100 acres all together. 2) On page 2 when you introduce Hitchcock's theory you say he "propositioned" it. I can tell you probably thought you were overusing "proposed" and wanted to mix things up. However, "to proposition" as a verb has a very different meaning than the one you are thinking of (look it up :) But overall, this is very polished writing. Thoroughness of research: 25 Inclusion of required information: 24 Citations, etc.: 25 General writing: 24 Total: 98/100 &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Liz Daskalakis -- Purgatory Chasm "Guidebook Entry" Excellent work. You have found the required information and put together a very readable and enticing guidebook entry about the chasm. For the most part, you have successfully avoided the overstatements that I cautioned you about in the writing prompt. There are a couple of small points I want to bring to your attention: 1) You say 180 acres as the area of the state park but every other source I have seen for this, including a list of state parks generated by the state agency in Massachusetts that runs them all says the Purgatory Chasm is 100 acres all together. 2) You say it is not clear why T.C. Wohlbruck took so many pictures of the landscapes of the chasm and I suppose that is true in a literal sense. However, it's easy to conjecture that he was impressed by the unusual and dramatic rock formations at the chasm and wanted to preserve them in photographs because he didn't know whether people would be setting aside this land as a state park (recall he was taking the photos around 1910 before the formation of the park). 3) Toward the bottom of page 2, you say the rocks in the chasm are "rigid" but I think you meant "rough" or "jagged." That's the evidence for saying that water did not dig out the chasm over a long period. If erosion water was the main driver of the formation, you would expect to see rocks with rounded surfaces and edges and that's not the case. But overall, this is very polished writing. Thoroughness of research: 25 Inclusion of required information: 24 Citations, etc.: 25 General writing: 23 Total: 97/100 &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Genevieve Gibbons -- Purgatory Chasm "Guidebook Entry" This is generally good, but you haven't been careful enough about giving citations for the individual facts you are mentioning in your descriptions. Also, I think it would have been better to consult a few more sources. Some comments: (1) The first paragraph giving your personal reaction is fine. But I think "tumbling down" rather than "crumbling down" would be a better choice of words. Saying "crumbling" seems like you are saying the rocks would disintegrate into (much smaller) rubble or debris and that would not be so threatening. (2) The name Purgatory Chasm should be capitalized. (3) The park we visited is a Massachusetts state park, not a national park. (4) The names of some of the features actually include an extra adjective you didn't mention -- "Devil's Corn-crib" "Devil's Coffin," etc. I think those names were supposed to go along with the name *Purgatory* Chasm. Look up "purgatory" if you're not familiar with that term in traditional Catholic theology. The idea was that purgatory was a sort of intermediate state between Hell and Heaven where souls of the dead had to wait and atone for sins they had committed in life before being allowed to enter Heaven. Something about the rough and chaotic rock formations we saw reminded the people who named this geological landscape feature of purgatory(!) (5) The sentence "The way these formations were created was that there are plates right under where the chasm is located that at one time shifted and created they to be pushed up" (on page 1) seems to be garbled. This is also related to the disagreement between the different theories you talk about later. So you might want to say that this is a part of the current understanding of how the chasm may have been formed. (6) Most importantly, you aren't providing specific citations to back up some of the specific statements of fact that are the body of your paper. The works cited at the end is a start, but you also need to identify the sources as you describe them in the paper. Thoroughness of research: 23 Inclusion of required information: 23 Citations, etc.: 15 General writing: 23 Total: 84/100 &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Emily Maher -- Purgatory Chasm "Guidebook Entry" Excellent work. You have found the required information and put together a very readable and enticing guidebook entry about the chasm. You have successfully avoided the overstatements I warned about in the writing prompt. Overall, this is very polished writing. You did an especially good job of documenting your sources and tracking down a good selection of works to cite. Just a couple of small criticisms: (1) Your first sentence is very "flat" and matter-of-fact. You might have spiced that up a little bit (but not with too much overstatement!) (2) In the last paragraph, I think you mean "trails" rather than "trials"(!) That sort of typo is very hard to catch unless you proofread carefully. Thoroughness of research: 25 Inclusion of required information: 25 Citations, etc.: 25 General writing: 23 Total: 98/100 &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Andrew Sisitzky -- Purgatory Chasm "Guidebook Entry" This is generally very good and well written, but you haven't been careful enough about giving citations for the individual facts you are mentioning in your descriptions. You aren't providing specific citations to back up some of the specific statements of fact that are the body of your paper. The works cited at the end is a start, but you also need to identify the sources as you describe them in the paper. This applies even when you are not using direct quotations. Footnotes or references to the specific items in the list of works at the end would be a way to do that. There is an aspect of Mauri Pelto's proposed explanation that did not come through all that clearly in what you said -- namely, that some of the tumbled rock formations with loose boulders could have come from action of glaciers "plucking" up rocks and depositing them in their current locations. Another small point -- Mauri Pelto is actually a man not a woman. He is a geologist teaching at Nichols College in Dudley, MA. Thoroughness of research: 25 Inclusion of required information: 24 Citations, etc.: 18 General writing: 23 Total: 90/100 &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Lily Droesch -- Purgatory Chasm "Guidebook Entry" Your paper really lists only one source -- a web site developed by Danni Lu and Irene Terpstra, who appear to be college (or perhaps even high school) students. There's a natural question to ask here -- how do you know what they are saying is correct? The only way to answer a question like that is to check with other sources and it does not look as though you did that. If you did, those other sources should be listed in your paper. Now as it turns out, almost all of what you are saying is fine. But in general for any writing assignment from now on here at the College that requires researching facts before beginning to write, you should plan to make a more complete search of literature. As I mentioned in class, Ms. Barbara Merolli, our Science Librarian is more than happy to help you identify sources by searching with the library resources at our disposal. The format of your citations is OK, but since the authors of the web page you are using are listed, their names should be included. Thoroughness of research: 20 (see above) Inclusion of required information: 25 Citations, etc.: 20 (the web page you used as your source identifies the authors; they should be included in the citation) General writing: 25 Total: 90/100 &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Ryan Gifford -- Purgatory Chasm "Guidebook Entry" Excellent work. You have found the required information and put together a very readable and enticing guidebook entry about the chasm. There are a few places where your choice of words borders on the overstatement I warned about: "principal geological wonder" in the first sentence, for instance. But overall, this is very polished. One very small criticism: On page 3, "Clark" in Clark University does not have an "e" Thoroughness of research: 25 Inclusion of required information: 25 Citations, etc.: 25 General writing: 24 Total: 99/100 &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Angel Chavez -- Purgatory Chasm "Guidebook Entry" Addressing potential hikers like readers of an actual guidbook is fine. I still think your choice of words borders on the the overstatement I warned about in the writing prompt: "capturing the Chasm in all of its glory" at the bottom of page 1, for instance. The names of some of the features actually include an extra adjective you didn't mention -- "Devil's Corn-crib" "Devil's Coffin," etc. I think those names were supposed to go along with the name *Purgatory* Chasm. Look up "purgatory" if you're not familiar with that term in traditional Catholic theology. The idea was that purgatory was a sort of intermediate state between Hell and Heaven where souls of the dead had to wait and atone for sins they had committed in life before being allowed to enter Heaven. Something about the rough and chaotic rock formations we saw reminded the people who named this geological landscape feature of purgatory(!) The comment about the Himalayas on page 2 seems to be a a misreading of something from one of your sources. I think the idea is that this area was originally under a chain of mountains that was that high, but that weathered away over a period of hundreds of millions of years. The rock making up the Chasm would have been far underground that long ago. It's not that the rock formations themselves were larger originally. This is generally good and well-written, but you haven't been careful enough about giving citations for the individual facts you are mentioning in your descriptions. You aren't providing specific citations to back up some of the specific statements of fact that are the body of your paper. The works cited at the end is a start, but you also need to identify the sources as you describe them in the paper. This applies even when you are not using direct quotations. Footnotes or references to the specific items in the list of works at the end would be a way to do that. The citations you give to things at "libguides.holycross.edu" are actually scanned versions of items that appeared originally in print. The citations should be to the original print items so that someone looking up your sources could find them even if they did not have access to the HC library resources you were using. Thoroughness of research: 25 Inclusion of required information: 23 Citations, etc.: 20 General writing: 23 Total: 91/100 &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Grace Peluso -- Purgatory Chasm "Guidebook Entry" Very good work. You have found the required information and put together a very readable and enticing guidebook entry about the chasm. There are a few places where your choice of words borders on the overstatement I warned about: "transport yourself out of the chaos of the real world and into a state of tranquility" in the first paragraph, for instance. There are a few places where your writing is not clear or where you have made small slips. On page 2, the explanation of why the Chasm is probably not a "keystone fault" could be clearer. You say "the aftermath generated from Keystone Faults is to a much larger degree." But I think the actual issue is that those geological formations are usually just much larger in size than this Chasm. When you discuss R.J. Lougee's theory, the sentence "The theory of Professor R.J. Lougee generated in 1951 was vastly believed for a long period of time" has two issues: (1) "generated" is a slightly odd word choice here -- maybe say "developed" (2) I'm not sure what "vastly believed" means. Did you mean "widely believed"? The main criticism I have is that you have not but you haven't been careful enough about giving citations for the individual facts you are mentioning in your descriptions. You aren't providing specific citations to back up some of the specific statements of fact that are the body of your paper. The works cited at the end is a start, but you also need to identify the sources as you describe them in the paper. This applies even when you are not using direct quotations. Footnotes or references to the specific items in the list of works at the end would be a way to do that. Thoroughness of research: 25 Inclusion of required information: 25 Citations, etc.: 20 General writing: 22 Total: 92/100 &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Madison Ward -- Purgatory Chasm "Guidebook Entry" Your first paragraph says that the Chasm is a "glacial crack" but it would probably be better not to take a stand on that at this point because of the discussion of the different explanations later on. Also the Chasm itself is not the hiking loop -- it's the split in the rocks and the hiking trails go around it. The main type of rock in the Chasm is called gneiss, not granite. Those types of rock are not too different in some ways, but gneiss has a smaller grain structure and fewer irregularities. In the discussion of Wohlbruck on page 2, "enlightened its natural beauty" does not really make sense -- maybe say "highlighted" or "displayed" instead of "enlightened." A small point: Mauri Pelto is on the faculty of Nichols College, not "Nicholas College." There are a couple of relatively small issues with your citations of sources, though. (1) The dabbler.org page you used as a source identifies its authors (Danni Lu and Irene Terpstra). They should be included in the citation and since the authors are given, they should be listed first. (2) As a whole, the format of the Works Consulted listings is confusing because you're using very similar titles for all of them. It's hard to tell them apart. I know that when the pages have titles, they can come out looking pretty much the same. In a case like this it might be better to list them by the URL. Thoroughness of research: 25 Inclusion of required information: 25 Citations, etc.: 20 General writing: 22 Total: 92/100 &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Najee Quashie -- Purgatory Chasm "Guidebook Entry" Good work. I have a few relatively small comments, but overall this is a very good introduction to the Chasm and the various ways people have tried to explain its formation. (1) I think you have a tendency to say things in "wordy" ways (maybe out of habit trying to extend the lengths of essays to meet target lengths). For instance, from your page 2: "Several geology professors have proposed theories as to how the rocks came to be formed the way they are." This is correct as a sentence, but it could be shorter and more direct, something like: "Several geologists have proposed theories explaining the way the rocks are formed." (2) There are a few places like the top of page 3: "The science of geology had not gotten off the ground running yet." where you have mixed metaphors -- "gotten off the ground" by itself would be fine, but "gotten off the ground running" does not really make sense. If you got off the ground, wouldn't you actually be flying? (3) Your citations of quotations other facts are good, but you're not being consistent about the format. Sometimes you use footnotes, but other times, you put the author of the source -- (Pelto). Pick one format and stick to it. Thoroughness of research: 25 Inclusion of required information: 25 Citations, etc.: 22 General writing: 21 Total: 93/100