Hamlet
2
6
2

This play was satisfactory at best. It was disorganized and had grammar mistakes. Additionally, the transitions for sentence to sentence we not sufficient enough.
He did a good job citing the text but a lot of it was him describing and summarizing the play when he could have been talking about why he made the choices he did in the play. Additionally, in some occasions he strays off topic from the focus of the essay. More over, the title is very long and wordy.
However, he did a help decent job talking about how he acted out the play. Although, he did get off topic occasionally, he did a good job talking about why he made his decisions in the play. He used a fair amount of text evidence too. Most of what he said was backed up by evidence or came from an analysis of the text.
However his analysis of literary features was very limited. All though he did talk about it, he did not go into debt in this category. He spent the majority of his essay on other topics. Although he did cite the text and analyze it he did not connect it to many literary features.
Overall, the quality of this essay was decent and if I were to give him a paper grade, I would give him a 80 although there is no rubric for this.

Richard III
5
8
5

Overall this person did a phenomenal job. There work is quality. Although this person did not get a perfect score, I think it is A+ work. This writer obviously knew how to write.
The writer was very organized. I liked how he separated each category into separate paragraphs. All his sentences had a good flow to them. Additionally, there were good transitions. The thesis to the essay was beyond good. It did a perfect job of summarizing the following text. Additionally, the author had a wide vocabulary range that his used cunningly in the first paragraph. I especially like the word tyrant. Besides this writer's astonishing organization, he also had quality literary analysis skills.
Somehow the writer managed to incorporate literary analysis  and features into his writing subtly. I like how he would sight text evidence, explain it, then talk about the literary devises used. This shows that he had a keen understanding of literary featured. Also he used literary features that are uncommon, which I found impressive. The literary features he added built to his writing greatly.
Although, he described his choices made, he could have done a better job at describing them. When he wrote about them he did a quality job. Additionally, the diagram was a nice touch. Yet, there were some tiny flaws that cost him points. First off at times, his analysis seemed like a summary. In this essay you are supposed to avoid summarizing the text. Additionally, a large part of his writing was literary analysis. This is a problem because this is supposed to be the main part of the essay. Besides those two small details the writer did a phenomenal job wiring the paper.