Written Critical Review Marking Rubric
(ACC61404)
Student Name: 0323177
Student Name: 0323266
Title of Journal Article Reviewed: 1. Corporate governance and firm performance in Malaysia
2. Corporate Governance Practices and Firm Performance: Evidence from Top 100 Public Listed
Companies in Malaysia
Need considerable
improvements
(0-39%)
Introduction Omit background or
(10%) inaccurate.
Summary (20%) Lack basic
understanding of the article.
Details are sketchy.
Copy most of the
phrases & sentences from
the article.
Critique (30%) Fail to demonstrate
evidence of critical thinking
skills and analysis.
Focus only on
describing the article. Did
not analyse or evaluate the
article.
Provide little or no
references/evidences to
confirm, refute or weaken
the claims and supporting
evidences in the article.
Barely reasonable
(40% - 49%)
Provide some
background of the article,
but it is incomplete or
inaccurate.
Omit or misunderstand
major parts of the article.
Copy some phrases &
sentences from the article
unnecessarily.
Poor evidence of
critical thinking skills and
analysis.
Mainly focus on
describing the article and
supporting evidences used
to support the claims in
the article. Show limited
attempt to analyse or
evaluate the article.
Many of the
references/evidences
used are irrelevant.
Total Grade/Mark:
Adequate
(50% - 64%)
Provide a satisfactory
amount of relevant
background information
on the article.
Describe the article,
main arguments,
research design, findings
and conclusions, but omit
some important details,
or misunderstand some
parts of the article.
Use mostly original
language.
Satisfactory evidence
of critical thinking skills
and analysis.
Mainly describe the
article’s arguments and
supporting evidences
used to support the
claims in the article.
Show some ability to
evaluate the article.
Show some
understanding on the
strengths and
weaknesses of the
article.
Provide some
appropriate
references/evidences
that confirm, refute or
weaken the arguments
and supporting
evidences.
Student ID: 0323937
Student ID: 0328258
Good
(65% - 74%)
Provide most of the
relevant background
information on the article.
Clearly describe the
article, main arguments,
research design, findings
and conclusions, but
include unnecessary
details in some parts.
Use own wordings.
Avoid copying
unnecessarily from the
article.
Demonstrate good
critical thinking skills and
analysis.
Thorough evaluation
of the article’s arguments
and supporting evidences
used to support the
claims in the article, but
overlook some points.
Thoughtful evaluation
of the strengths and
weaknesses of the
article, but overlook some
points.
Provide well suited
references/evidences that
confirm, refute or weaken
the arguments and
supporting evidences.
Marker Initial:
Very Good Grade
(75% - 100%) /Mark
Provide all required
relevant background
information on the article.
Clearly describe the
article, main arguments,
research design, findings
and conclusions.
Succinct summary.
Show a good
understanding of relevant
premise of the article, and
avoids extraneous detail.
Use own wordings.
Avoid copying
unnecessarily from the
article.
Demonstrate excellent
critical thinking skills and
analysis.
Thorough evaluation of
the article’s arguments and
supporting evidences used
to support the claims in the
article.
Thoughtful evaluation of
the strengths and
weaknesses of the article.
Provide highly relevant
references/evidences that
confirm, refute or weaken
the arguments and
supporting evidences.
1

Need considerable
improvements
(0-39%)
Recommendations Fail to demonstrate
& Conclusions evidence of critical
(20%) thinking skills and
analysis.
Did not link
recommendations to the
critique.
No recommendations
made or
recommendations are
invalid. Mainly just
repeating ideas found in
the article.
Omit conclusion or
provide an illogical
conclusion.
Provide no or little
references/evidences to
support claims.
Organisation Review lack
(10%) organisation. Poor flow
within and between the
different paragraphs.
Reader has major
difficulty in following the
review. Writing does not
flow well & is not clear.
Language and Poor use of language.
Format (10%) Excessive awkwardness.
Many grammatical errors.
Numerous spelling
errors.
Incorrect referencing &
citation format.
Written Critical Review Marking Rubric
(ACC61404)
Barely reasonable
(40% - 49%)
Poor evidence of
critical thinking skills and
analysis.
Limited attempt to link
recommendations to the
critique.
Recommendations are
mostly irrelevant.
Provide a conclusion
that that has somewhat
logical.
Many of the
references/evidences
provided are irrelevant.
Some attempt at
logical organisation. Few
paragraphs are connected
with smooth transitions.
Reader has some
difficulty in following the
review. Writing does not
flow well & is not clear.
Language mostly
correct with some
awkwardness.
Some errors in
spelling.
Made some mistakes
in referencing & citation
format.
Adequate
(50% - 64%)
Satisfactory evidence
of critical thinking skills
and analysis.
Show some attempt
to link recommendations
to the critique.
Provide some
appropriate
recommendations.
Provide basic
conclusions.
Provide some
appropriate references
to support claims.
Organisation is
generally evident. Some
paragraphs are
connected with smooth
and logical transitions.
Reader has little
difficulty in following the
review. Writing flows well
and is quite clear.
Good basic writing
style. Easy to read. Few
grammatical errors.
Mostly correct with minor
awkwardness
A few spelling errors.
Made a few mistakes
in referencing & citation
format.
Good
(65% - 74%)
Demonstrate good
critical thinking skills and
analysis.
A clear link between
the recommendations
and the critique.
Provide good
recommendations
Provide good
conclusions.
Provide well suited
references to support
claims.
Clear and logical flow
within and between the
different sections and
paragraphs. Most
paragraphs are
connected with smooth
transitions.
Clear, concise and
comprehensive. Good
write-up that flows well.
Good use of
language. Easy to read.
Mostly error free.
Spelling mostly
correct.
Made very minimal
mistakes in referencing &
citation format.
Very Good Grade
(75% - 100%) /Mark
Demonstrate excellent
critical thinking skills and
analysis.
A clear link between the
recommendations and the
critique.
Provide very good
recommendations
Provide very good
conclusions.
Provide highly relevant
references to support
claims.
Excellent logical flow
within and between the
different sections. Entire
paper move smoothly and
are connected logically.
Exemplary writing that
flows well: clear, concise,
and comprehensive.
Excellent flow.
Excellent use of
language. Flawless
grammar. Complex yet
lucid sentence structure.
No spelling error.
Exemplary referencing
& citations format
throughout.
2
Strengths of this assignment are:

___________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

Weaknesses of this assignment are:

___________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

The two main ways to improve this assignment are:

___________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________