| Item | Details | Mark | Score |
| 1 | Grasp of concept – has grasped the nuances of Service-Dominant Logic concept | 10 | |
| 2 | Interpretation – valid and convincing, reflects a good grasp of S-D Logic | 10 | |
| 3 | Argument – a logical flow of points in support of interpretation | 20 | |
| 4 | Counter-argument – a convincing use of critics’ points of view to support interpretation | 20 | |
| 5 | Evidence – use of evidence from own experiences to illustrate/describe/support interpretation | 15 | |
| 6 | Conclusion – has a unity of thought that links the key points of each section, into a convincing conclusion | 15 | |
| 7 |
Mechanics – · root article and five other journal articles used · appropriate formatting adhered · grammar and spelling checked · references and quotes are correctly attributed and cited · font, line-spacing, header and footer details are correct · submitted on time |
10 | |
| TOTAL | 100 |
|
Grading Rubric for Assignment 1 |
||||||
| Sophisticated (89 +) | Highly Competent (75-89) | Fairly Competent (60-74) | Not Yet Competent (50-59) |
Touch ‘n’ Go (49 and less) |
||
|
1. Grasp of concept (10) – depth of analysis |
The essay shows a good grasp of Service-Dominant Logic, with a clear and logical explanation of the concept. The essay displays an ability to explain and apply the foundational premises is thoughtful, insightful, and/or original ways. |
The essay shows an understanding of the concept, but the explanation is somewhat lacking in depth. It meets the parameters of the assignment, but does not clearly explain and apply the foundational premises; at times lacking in insight and originality. |
The essay shows an understanding that is similar to a jet boat skimming across the surface, but lacking the depth of an exploratory plunge. Does not fully meet the parameters, and displays a weak grasp of the foundational premises, as well as weak or at times irrelevant application. Lacks insight and originality. |
The essay touches briefly on the surface and does not create any ripple effect. Meets less than half of the assignment parameters, and does not explain the foundational premises. There is an absence of application, as well as insights and original thinking. |
Does not answer assignment parameters. Plagiarised work. |
|
| 2. Interpretation (10) – grasp of readings | Writings represent the author’s arguments, evidence and conclusions accurately, fairly, and eloquently. It demonstrates a firm understanding of the implications of the author’s arguments. | Writings represent the author’s arguments, evidence and conclusions accurately. | Writings represent the author’s arguments, evidence and conclusions accurately, though not in a sufficiently clear manner. There are minor inaccuracies. | The writings misrepresent the author’s arguments, evidence and/or conclusions. | The writings are incoherent. Plagiarism is clearly evident. | |
| 3. Argument (20) – logical flow of points in support of interpretation |
A clear and eloquent, central argument is identified. The reader is able to follow, and know exactly what is being communicated. There is organisational structure, and guides the reader smoothly and logically through the argument. |
A clear and central argument is identified, and the reader is able to generally follow the discussion thread with ease. |
The argument is present, but the reader must reconstruct it from the text. The points raised are not stated clearly. |
There is an attempt to present the argument, but it is not put into proper context. | There is no discernible argument. Points raised are merely copied work from the sources. | |
| 4. Counter argument (20) – a convincing use of critics’ points to support argument | Critiques of the definitions are used convincingly to support the author’s interpretation of the definition of S-D Logic. | Critiques of the definitions are used, and the reader is able to follow the discourse. | Critiques of the definitions are used, but not fully, to support the author’s interpretation. They are unclear at times. | Minimal use of critiques, and they do not have a logical flow to support the interpretation. | Counter arguments, if any, are incoherent and do not add value to the writing. | |
| 5. Evidence (15) – use of own evidence |
Use of own evidence is rich, eloquent, and convincing. Evidence is relevant and original. Opposing evidence (evidence that might contradict central argument) considered and convincingly refuted. |
Use of evidence is relevant and sufficiently convincing; and original. Opposing evidence, where applicable, considered and refuted. |
Use of author’s own evidence is minimal but just sufficient but not convincing enough to support argument. It allows doubt. Opposing evidence considered, but not refuted. |
Evidence used is not author’s own, purely to meet assignment parameters, but lacks discussion and application. Opposing evidence not considered. |
Evidence is incongruent with the argument, which is already indiscernible. | |
| 6. Conclusion (15) – has unity of thought, resulting in a convincing conclusion. |
Elegantly synthesises and reframes the key points in the essay. Suggests new perspectives/considerations or questions that are central to the argument, and brings closure. |
Synthesises and reframes the key points, but does not raise new perspectives/considerations or questions. |
Restates the same points in the body paragraphs, without reframing. Introduces new material rather than new perspectives. |
Conclusion is missing or cursory, glossing over the details. The body paragraphs are repeated ad verbatim (copied word for word). |
Conclusion, if any, is incoherent and irrelevant. | |
| 7. Mechanics (10) | Meets all technical criteria listed. | Meets 4-5 of the technical criteria listed. | Meets half of the technical criteria listed. | Meets two out of the six technical criteria listed. | Meets one or none of the technical criteria listed. | |
| Item | Details | Mark | Score |
| 1 | Topic identified, scholarly, peer-reviewed journal articles are completed – five per team member | 2.5 | |
| 2 | All the articles selected are relevant to the selected topic. | 2.5 | |
| 3 | Spread sheet containing critical analysis of the team’s journal article is completed. (X team members x 5 articles) and submitted to Turnitin by due date. | 5 | |
| 4 | All the team’s journal articles are critically analysed and presented in the template given. The key research question is identified, the concepts, theories and principles are outlined, and reasons why the current research is necessary. | 10 | |
| 5 | The research findings are identified and critiqued, and arguments in support of and against the research question and its findings are raised. | 12 | |
| 6 | Views, opinions and new perspectives are raised. (Note: there are no wrong answers for this task; and irrelevant ones will cost you marks.) | 13 | |
| 7 |
Mechanics – · each team member has contributed the required five articles · appropriate formatting adhered · grammar and spelling checked · references and quotes are correctly attributed and cited · font, line-spacing, header and footer details are correct · submitted on time |
5 | |
| TOTAL | 50 |
| Sophisticated (89 +) | Highly Competent (75-89) | Fairly Competent (60-74) | Not Yet Competent (50-59) |
Touch ‘n’ Go (49 and less) |
|
| 1. Task 1 (2.5) – topic identified and journal articles completed |
Topic clearly identified. Each team member has correctly entered respective input of five scholarly, peer-reviewed journals relevant to the selected topic. Critical analysis has depth and clarity of understanding of the selected topic. |
Topic clearly identified. Each team member has entered respective input of five scholarly, peer-reviewed journals relevant to the topic. Critical analysis has depth, but somewhat lacking in clarity, with minor inaccuracies. |
Topic mentioned. Total scholarly, peer-reviewed journals is less than total no. of 5 journals x No. of team members. |
Topic mentioned. Total scholarly, peer-reviewed journals is less than total no. of 5 journals x No. of team members. |
Topic mentioned in passing. Total scholarly, peer-reviewed journals is less than total no. of 5 journals x No. of team members. |
|
2. Task 2 (2.5) – relevance |
All articles selected for review is highly relevant to the topic selected. | 85% of all articles selected are relevant to the topic selected. |
75% of all articles selected are relevant to the topic selected. Two to five of the articles selected are not scholarly, peer-reviewed journal articles. |
50% of all articles selected are relevant to the topic selected. 50% of articles are not scholarly, peer-reviewed journal articles. |
Less than 50% of the articles selected are relevant to the topic selected, and more than 50% are NOT scholarly, peer-reviewed journal articles. |
| 3. Task 3 (5) – completion of spread sheet | Spread sheet containing critical analysis of the team’s journal articles is completed. (X no. team members X 5 articles), submitted to Turnitin by due date. |
Spread sheet containing critical analysis of the team’s journal articles is completed. (X no. team members X 5 articles), submitted to Turnitin by due date. Minor inaccuracies detected. |
Spread sheet containing critical analysis of the team’s journal articles is completed. Total articles is less than X no. team members X 5 articles, submitted to Turnitin by due date. Details of critical analysis lack depth, superficial at best, with noticeable inaccuracies. |
Spread sheet containing critical analysis of the team’s journal articles is completed. Total articles is less than X no. team members X 5 articles), submitted to Turnitin by due date. Details of critical analysis lack depth, more a skimming of resources, with noticeable inaccuracies. |
Spread sheet containing critical analysis of the team’s journal articles is completed. Total articles is less than X no. team members X 5 articles), submitted to Turnitin AFTER due date. A copy and paste job, devoid of any critical analysis. Although accurate reproduction, input lacks cohesion and relevance to the topic selected. |
| 4. Critical analysis (10) – input |
All journal articles are analysed and presented accurately in template provided. · Key research question is identified. · Concepts, theories and principles are outlined. · Reasons why current research is important are outlined. |
All journal articles are analysed and presented accurately in template provided. · Key research question is identified. · Concepts, theories and principles are outlined. · Reasons why current research is important are outlined. · Minor inaccuracies and one or two key exclusions are detected. |
All journal articles are analysed and presented accurately in template provided. · Key research question is partially identified. · Concepts, theories and principles are outlined. · Reasons why current research is important not mentioned. · Accuracies and noticeable key exclusions are detected. |
All journal articles are analysed and presented accurately in template provided. · Key research question is vaguely mentioned. · Concepts, theories and principles are partially outlined. · Reasons why current research is important is not mentioned. · Glaring inaccuracies, and key exclusions are noticeable. |
All journal articles are analysed and presented accurately in template provided. · Key research question is not mentioned. · Concepts, theories and principles are briefly mentioned. · Reasons why current research is important are missing. · Incoherent analysis. |
| 5. Research findings (12) - critiques |
Research findings are identified and critiqued. Arguments in support of, or against the research question and its findings are raised. |
Research findings are identified and critiqued. Arguments in support of, or against the research question and its findings are raised, but with a less convincing ‘voice’. |
Research findings are identified and partially critiqued. Arguments in support of, or against the research question and its findings are raised, but are weak and lacking support. |
Research findings are identified and nominally critiqued. Arguments in support of, or against the research question and/or its findings are not raised; and are weak and lacking support. |
Research findings are briefly identified and not critiqued. Arguments in support of, or against the research question and its findings are not mentioned. |
| 6. Views, opinions and new perspectives are raised (13) | Views, opinions, new perspectives, and questions asked are relevant and congruent with the research. | Views, opinions, new perspectives, and questions asked are relevant and somewhat congruent with the research. | Views, opinions, new perspectives, and questions asked are somewhat relevant but are lacking congruence with the research. | Views, opinions, new perspectives, and questions asked are vaguely relevant and bear no congruence with the research. | Views, opinions, new perspectives, and questions are not asked/raised. |
| 7. Mechanics (5) |
Meets all technical criteria: · each team member has contributed the required five articles · appropriate formatting adhered · grammar and spelling checked · references and quotes are correctly attributed and cited · font, line-spacing, header and footer details are correct · submitted on time |
Meets all technical criteria, with minor inaccuracies: · each team member has contributed the required five articles · appropriate formatting adhered · grammar and spelling checked · references and quotes are correctly attributed and cited · font, line-spacing, header and footer details are correct · submitted on time |
Meets 4/6 of technical criteria: · each team member has contributed the required five articles · appropriate formatting adhered · grammar and spelling checked · references and quotes are correctly attributed and cited · font, line-spacing, header and footer details are correct · submitted on time |
Meets 3/6 of technical criteria: · each team member has contributed the required five articles · appropriate formatting adhered · grammar and spelling checked · references and quotes are correctly attributed and cited · font, line-spacing, header and footer details are correct · submitted on time |
Meets less than 2/6 of technical criteria: · each team member has contributed the required five articles · appropriate formatting adhered · grammar and spelling checked · references and quotes are correctly attributed and cited · font, line-spacing, header and footer details are correct · submitted on time |
| Item | Details | Mark | Score |
| 1 | Overall impression – Topic is clearly identified and the main question(s) or issue(s) is/are addressed | 10 | |
| 2 | Argument – Proposition is clearly stated and well-supported | 17 | |
| 3 | Counter argument – Opposition or criticism of proposition is clearly stated, and justification of counter argument is presented | 17 | |
| 4 | Evidence – presented to give a persuasive argument, to convince reader to accept the main argument | 10 | |
| 5 | Counter evidence – is considered, to weaken or refute the argument/proposition | 10 | |
| 6 | Conclusion – a thoughtful synthesis and reframing of arguments and counter arguments, and the review ends with suggestions or new perspectives or questions that are relevant to the central proposition. | 16 | |
| 7 | Sources and citations | 10 | |
| 8 |
Mechanics – · resources from the Group’s spread sheet used · appropriate formatting adhered · grammar and spelling checked · references and quotes are correctly attributed and cited · font, line-spacing, header and footer details are correct · submitted on time |
10 | |
| TOTAL | 100 |
| Sophisticated (89 +) | Highly Competent (75-89) | Fairly Competent (60-74) | Not Yet Competent (50-59) | Touch ‘n’ Go (49 and less) | |
| 1. Overall impression (10) | Topic is clearly identified and the main question(s) or issue(s) is/are identified and well explained to the reader. | Topic is clearly identified and the main question(s) or issue(s) is/are identified and explained to the reader. | Topic is clearly identified and the main question(s) or issue(s) is/are identified. | Topic is clearly identified and the main question(s) or issue(s) is/are not clearly identified. Reader has to refer to group spread sheet. |
Topic is clearly identified and the main question(s) or issue(s) is/are not identified. Copy and paste is evident. |
| 2. Argument (17) | Proposition is clearly stated and well supported. The common themes are identified and cohesively linked. | Proposition is clearly stated and well supported. The common themes are identified and linked, although lacking in overall cohesion. | Proposition is stated and supported. The common themes are identified. | Proposition is briefly stated and weakly supported. Not all the common themes are identified lacks cohesion. |
Proposition is vague and hardly supported. The common themes are briefly noted and lack cohesion. Copy and paste is evident. |
| 3. Counter argument (17) | Opposition or criticism of proposition is clearly stated, and justification of counter argument is well presented. Themes contrary to the proposition are identified and well supported. | Opposition or criticism of proposition is clearly stated, and justification of counter argument is presented. Themes contrary to the proposition are identified and supported, although some convincing is required. | Opposition or criticism of proposition is mentioned, and justification of counter argument is attempted. Themes contrary to the proposition are vaguely identified and hardly convincing. | Opposition or criticism of proposition is briefly mentioned, and justification of counter argument is absent. Themes contrary to the proposition are not fully covered and are unsupported. |
Opposition or criticism of proposition vague, and without justification. Themes contrary to the proposition are not mentioned. Copy and paste is evident. |
| 4. Evidence (17) | Presented to support a persuasive argument, to convince the reader to accept the main argument. The reader does not have questions. | Presented to support a persuasive argument, to convince the reader to accept the main argument. The reader may raise one or two questions. | Presented to support an argument, but insufficient to convince the reader to accept the main argument. The reader will raise questions and look for other resources for verification. | A skimming approach, to support the argument, but lacks logic to convince the reader to accept the main argument. The reader will have difficulty linking it to the information in the group’s resource spread sheet. |
There is a glaring absence of evidence. The reader has more questions than answers. Copy and paste is evident. |
| 5. Counter evidence (17) | Presented, and is considered, to weaken or refute the argument/proposition. It is robust, and has a logical anti-thesis to the evidence. | Presented, and is considered, to weaken or refute the argument/proposition. It has a logical anti-thesis to the evidence. | Presented, and is considered, to weaken or refute the argument/proposition. However, it is brief, and therefore weak and lacks logic/cohesion. | Presented, but does nothing to weaken or refute the argument/proposition. |
Not presented, lacks logic, relevance and is incoherent. Copy and paste is evident. |
| 6. Conclusion (16) | A thoughtful synthesis and reframing of arguments and counter arguments, and the review ends with suggestions or new perspectives or questions that are relevant to the central proposition. Shows originality of thought and ownership of issues. | A thoughtful synthesis and reframing of arguments and counter arguments, and the review ends with suggestions or new perspectives or questions that are relevant to the central proposition. Shows originality of though. | A synthesis and reframing of arguments and counter arguments, but there is struggles with suggestions or new perspectives or questions that are relevant to the central proposition. Shows some originality of thought. | A re-hashing of arguments and counter arguments, and the review ends without suggestions or new perspectives or questions that are relevant to the central proposition. Originality of thought is not evident. |
A copy and paste job of arguments and counter arguments in previous paragraphs. No new suggestions, perspectives or questions are raised. Copy and paste is evident. |
| 7. Sources and citations (10) | Evidence is used from a range of sources including lectures and course readings, scholarly peer-reviewed journal articles. All sources and evidence are properly cited, using APA 6th style. | Evidence is used from a limited range of sources including lectures and course readings, scholarly peer-reviewed journal articles. All sources and evidence are properly cited, using APA 6th style. | Evidence is used from a limited range of sources mostly from lectures and course readings, articles which are mostly non-scholarly. Errors in using APA 6th style. | Sources do not go beyond what is taught in class, and the required additional research is not done. APA 6th style incorrectly used. | Sources used minimally, limited to class materials. Heavy reliance on non-scholarly material and sources, such as Wikipedia, and on-line articles submitted by other students. APA 6th is not used. |
| 8. Mechanics (10) |
Meets all technical criteria: · resources from the Group’s spread sheet is used · appropriate formatting is adhered · grammar and spelling checked · references and quotes are correctly attributed and cited · font, line-spacing, header and footer details are correct · submitted on time |
Meets all technical criteria: · resources from the Group’s spread sheet is used · appropriate formatting is adhered · minor grammar and spelling errors detected · references and quotes are correctly attributed and cited · font, line-spacing, header and footer details are correct · submitted on time |
Meets 4/6 technical criteria: · resources from the Group’s spread sheet is used · appropriate formatting is adhered · noticeable grammar and spelling errors · references and quotes are incorrectly attributed and cited · font, line-spacing, header and footer details are correct · submitted on time |
Meets 2/6 technical criteria: · resources from the Group’s spread sheet is partially used · appropriate formatting is adhered · glaring grammar and spelling errors · references and quotes are incorrectly attributed and wrongly cited · font, line-spacing, header and footer details are correct · submitted on time |
Meets less than 2/6 technical criteria: · limited use of resources from the Group’s spread sheet · formatting not adhered · glaring grammar and spelling errors · no references and quotes are incorrectly attributed and wrongly · font, line-spacing, header and footer details are not completed · late submission |
| Item | Details | Mark | Score |
| 1 | Service elements and/or events of service exchanges occur are identified and appropriately matched with the Business Model canvas building blocks | 25 | |
| 2 | Service Gap Model is applied. | 25 | |
| 3 | List of events, issues, problems and impediments is completed. | 25 | |
| 4 | Hard copy of completed canvas (A3, landscape) is completed and submitted at end of class. | 15 | |
| 5 |
Mechanics – · canvas is completed · appropriate formatting adhered · grammar and spelling checked · references and quotes are correctly attributed and cited (if any) · font, line-spacing, header and footer details are correct · submitted on time |
10 | |
| TOTAL | 100 |
| Item | Details | Mark | Score |
| 1 | Problems (existing and potential) that can cause service failures are identified and listed | 10 | |
| 2 | Situations and/or events that can cause the problems to surface are highlighted and explained | 15 | |
| 3 | A description of the impact(s that these problems can inflict) on the marketing process and service quality | 20 | |
| 4 | A description of the possible solutions, from a Services Marketing perspective, applying Service Gap Model | 20 | |
| 5 | Recommendations as a pre-emptive measure | 15 | |
| 6 | One-page reflection of your student experience regarding this course | 10 | |
| 7 |
Mechanics – · appropriate formatting adhered · grammar and spelling checked · references and quotes are correctly attributed and cited (if any) · font, line-spacing, header and footer details are correct · submitted on time |
10 | |
| TOTAL | 100 |
| Sophisticated (89 +) | Highly Competent (75-89) | Fairly Competent (60-74) | Not Yet Competent (50-59) |
Touch ‘n’ Go (49 and less) |
|
| 1. Identifying and listing existing and potential problems (10) | Problems and issues, existing and potential, are identified and listed, and prioritised from severe to not severe. Each item identified is supported by a brief and relevant description. | Problems and issues, existing and potential, are identified and listed, and prioritised from severe to not severe. Each item identified is supported by a brief description. | Problems and issues, existing and potential, are identified and listed, and somewhat prioritised from severe to not severe. Errors detected. | Only existing problems and issues are identified and listed, without any indication of severity. Problems identified lack relevance and contain noticeable errors. | Only existing problems, are identified and listed, without any indication of severity. Problems identified are not relevant and incorrect in most instances. |
| 2. Highlight and explain situations and/or events that can cause the problems to surface (15) | Events highlighted clear, well-explained, and examples are given to support their inclusion. Events are well-linked to list in 1. | Events highlighted clear, well-explained, and examples are given to support their inclusion. Events are linked to list in 1. | Events highlighted clear, explained, and some examples are given to support their inclusion. Events are not fully linked to list in 1. | Events are highlighted are not clearly explained and reader has to keep referring to source document for clarity. No examples are given to support their inclusion. Only some of the events linked to 1. | Events highlighted unclear, and explanations incoherent. There is no logical connection to the events in 1. |
| 3. Description of the impact that the problems can inflict on the marketing process and service quality (20) | Clear, insightful description of the impacts and the possible outcomes on marketing process and service quality. Answers show depth of thought and consideration of both sides of the argument; and categorised from severe to mild. | Clear, insightful description of the impacts and the possible outcomes on marketing process and service quality. Answers show depth of thought and consideration; and attempts to classify the impacts. | Clear description of the impacts and the possible outcomes on marketing process and service quality. Answers show an attempt to classify the impacts. Errors detected. | Description of the impacts without mention of the possible outcomes on marketing process and service quality. Answers show a lack of effort, errors plainly evident. | A copy and paste reproduction of the master resource sheet. Incoherent, lot of errors and shows no effort. |
| 4. Description of solutions, from the Services Marketing perspective, using the Service Gap Model (20) | Solutions described – clear, insightful, shows depth, originality and lateral thinking towards problem solving. Service Gap Model applied is logical and refreshing, reflecting a creative thought process. | Solutions described – clear, insightful, shows depth, originality and lateral thinking towards problem solving. Service Gap Model applied logical and refreshing. Minor but negligible errors detected. | Solutions described – clear, shows depth of thinking towards problem solving. Service Gap Model applied logically, but nothing to be excited about. Errors detected. | Solutions described, but lacking originality and lateral thinking towards problem solving. Service Gap Model partially applied, incorrectly in some instances. Several noticeable errors detected. | A copy and paste reproduction of the master resource sheet. Service Gap Model not applied. |
| 5. Recommendations as a pre-emptive measure (15) | Recommendations are original, exciting, valid, logical, and doable/achievable. They are relevant and well-linked to the answers given in 1, 2, 3, and 4. There is depth of thought and insightful inputs to the final recommendations. | Recommendations are original, valid, logical, and doable/achievable. They are relevant and well-linked to the answers given in 1, 2, 3, and 4. There is depth of thought and insightful inputs to the final recommendations. Negligible errors detected. | Recommendations are original, logical, and doable/achievable. They are relevant and linked to the answers given in 1, 2, 3, and 4. Errors detected, caused by errors in 1, 2, 3, and 4. | Recommendations are doable/achievable, but only so-so. They are somewhat linked to the answers given in 1, 2, 3, and 4. Not much thinking has occurred here. Errors detected, caused by errors in 1, 2, 3, and 4. | Recommendations are irrelevant and has no bearing on the problems/issues identified. |
| 6. One-page reflection* (10) | Demonstrates a conscious and thorough understanding of the writing prompt and subject matter. | Demonstrates a thoughtful understanding of the writing prompt and the subject matter. | Demonstrates a basic understanding of the writing prompt and the subject matter. | Demonstrates a limited understanding of the writing prompt and the subject matter. This reflection needs revision | Demonstrates little or no understanding of the writing prompt and subject matter. This reflection needs revision. |
| 7. Mechanics |
Meets all technical criteria: · appropriate formatting adhered to · grammar and spelling checked · references and quotes are correctly attributed and cited (if any) · font, line-spacing, header and footer details are correct · submitted on time |
Meets all technical criteria: · appropriate formatting adhered to · minor grammar and spelling errors · references and quotes are correctly attributed and cited (if any), minor errors detected · font, line-spacing, header and footer details are correct · submitted on time |
Meets 3/5 technical criteria: · appropriate formatting adhered to · grammar and spelling errors detected · references and quotes are correctly attributed and cited (if any), noticeable errors · font, line-spacing, header and footer details are correct · submitted on time |
Meets 2/5 technical criteria: · appropriate formatting adhered to · grammar and spelling errors very evident · references and quotes are incorrectly attributed and cited (if any) · font, line-spacing, header and footer details are correct · submitted on time |
Meets 1/5 technical criteria: · appropriate formatting adhered to · no grammar and spelling checked · references and quotes are incorrectly attributed and cited (if any) · font, line-spacing, header and footer details are correct not adhered to · late submission |
