Stud no.
|
1 /5
|
2 /5
|
3.1 /15
|
3.2 /10
|
3.3 /10
|
3.4 /10
|
4 /15
|
5 /20
|
Oral /10
|
681501
|
4
|
4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
464496
|
4
|
4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
706899
|
4.5
|
4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
389303
|
4.2
|
3.25
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
747084
|
4.9
|
4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
753493
|
4.3
|
3.75
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
555609
|
2.5
|
3.25
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
707650
|
4.4
|
3.75
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
718168
|
4.5
|
3.25
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
735201
|
5
|
3.25
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
721517
|
2.7
|
3.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
707743
|
2.3
|
3.25
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
721032
|
3.3
|
4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
712994
|
2.3
|
3.85
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jerusalema
– very good format with a great cover.
work demonstrates intro, body, conclusion + ref. sourcing can be improved. where were the images sourced from? other than that, the essay is lyrical and
flows, covering pertinent urban issues.
strong work.
the
prestige – a very good paper with a strong
cover. paper has good structure; intro,
plotting, unpacking, conclusion + refs.
image sourcing could have been more accurate. overall, strong work.
fury
road – paper lacks a decent cover page and
references, but is overall a solid paper that is well written and makes an
interesting read. overall, strong work.
fast
and the furious 7 – an acceptable paper
with a terrible cover and no referencing.
paper fails to identify the author’s name except giving a student
number. why is this so? in future, submitted work should contain an
academic structure, as in an appropriate cover page, body text, conclusion + references. a worthwhile read marred by a poor structure.
the
giver – a good paper that lacks academic
structure. no cover page, no intro, no
conclusion – just body text and references.
this is not sufficient. the great
pity is that a portion of this film was filmed on the wits campus. none of the images reflect this. why? a film of this nature needs more imagery
to support the text. that being said,
the paper is worth read.
step
up 5 – a very good submission with lyrical
prose. very good stuff. the only glitch is that the images are not
referenced. this does not however take too
much away from the strong paper with a powerful emotive narrative. very strong work.
bad
boys 2 – this is one of the few papers i had
problems with. from the minimalistic
bland cover, to the lack of intro, to the stretch out images with contain no
references, to a lack of conclusion and no references. at this level, you are required to produce
work which has an acceptable academic rigour.
cover the basics and the rest will follow. unacceptable submission. push your work harder.
kick-ass
2 – a very well written paper with
poignant insight. from the apt quotes to
a proper intro to body and conclusion.
it’s a pity that there are no references. the only image in the paper could have been
used as a cover page and some illustrative images to supplement and enhance the
body text. overall, very strong, poetic
work. keep working like this.
the
great gatsby – another paper which was
problematic. what’s with the cover
page? how can a paper which deals with a
visual medium be rendered in this manner?
paper lacks academic structure apart from the well sourced 2 images
which supplement the words. no intro, no
conclusion, but kudos for the references.
future projects need to dig deeper to be of an acceptable standard. It is as if the Paper fumbled whilst looking
for the key, in the twilight, to a door that is wide open. disappointing work.
the
grand budapest hotel – strong work. strong layout. strong structure. in future, have a strong cover, intro and
conclude the text. the images chosen to
complement the text are beyond the expectation.
well done.
die
hard – a good submission which hits all right
notes as in intro, body text, conclusion and references. in future, design a cover page which will
enhance the work and choose images that are legible and then reference them
properly. good work.
divergent
– excellent submission. excellent cover,
excellent format which has an intro, body text, conclusion + references. images are properly referenced and the 2
column layout is on point. excellent
work.
inception
– a very good submission which would have been excellent if the paper
articulated the structure more eloquently – as in intro, body, conclusion +
refs. in future, always make sure the
basics are covered. strong work.
crash
– sublime work marred slightly by the lack of captions accompanying the
images. when using images, always try
to supplement with text for richer access.