1. Is it focused?
That is, does it go into detail on a clearly-defined question or topic? Or does it conduct a general and thus rather superficial discussion? (Examples: An essay that focuses on how Henry V's character is revealed in a particular speech or scene is going to be better-focused than an essay on "Henry V's character.")

2. Is it well-written?
A) Is the essay free of errors in spelling, punctuation, grammar and usage?
B) Are the paragraphs focused and fully developed? That is, does each paragraph cover one main idea, and cover it thoroughly?
C) Does the essay's organization make sense either logically or aesthetically? Is it easy for the reader to follow?
D) Does the argument flow and cohere? That is, do strong transitions carry the reader from sentence to sentence and from paragraph to paragraph?

3. Is it well-argued?
A) Are all factual assertions about the author, the text, or the cultural background to the text accurate? (Be especially careful to avoid sweeping generalizations, which are rarely accurate.)
B) Are all quotations accurately transcribed?
C) If it is a literary analysis paper, does the writer defend his or her conclusions simply by quoting the text as evidence, or are quotations subjected to analysis that demonstrates how he or she reached those conclusions?
D)  If it is a staging paper, does the writer clearly describe his or her vision of the play's most important themes and thoroughly explain how the specific choices he or she makes in staging a particular the scene will help to embody that vision?
E)  If it is a production analysis paper, does the writer clearly express an opinion about the effectiveness of a particular scene in the production he or she watched?  And does the writer support and defend that position with specific examples and explanations?

4. Does it accomplish the goals of the assignment?

If it is a literary analysis paper:
Does it help the reader to understand or better appreciate the work discussed? Does it uncover a hidden weakness in the work? Does it reveal or help to explain the work's strengths? Does it provide a fresh perspective on the author's goals or methods? Does it explore the significance or meaning of a work for a particular audience?  Most importantly of all, does it discuss the literary work as such, considering how the writer has handled a particular subject or theme (e.g., an essay on how Jasmina Reza shapes the character of Yvan in Art) rather than simply discussing the subject or theme itself (e.g., an essay describing Yvan as a person or discussing the characteristics of people like Yvan)?  A paper that uses the literary work only as an illustration to support an argument about the work's subject-matter is not literary analysis.

If it is a staging paper:
Does it help the reader to understand the text by providing a fresh, well thought out and vividly described account of how it might be staged?  Does it clearly define the paper-writer's interpretation of the play's themes and of the particular scene's importance to the development of those themes?  Does it support the viability and effectiveness of that interpretation through clear explanations of creative choices for staging?

If it is a production analysis paper?
Does it clearly express the writers opinion about the effectiveness of the scene in a particular Whitman production?  Does it support, explain, and defend that opinion, demonstrating which aspects of the text were best embodied and brought to life by the production?  Which were downplayed?  Which were ignored or lost?