Point One – “What did you do well?”
The most obvious success in this case, I believe, would be under Criterion D , language, where I received my highest mark. According to the rubric, this meant that in my paper, I had demonstrated clear and carefully chosen language, as well as a good degree of accuracy regarding grammar, vocabulary, and sentence construction. None of those points I dispute, but ultimately this is unimportant, being a shallow Criterion (in my belief), paling before Criterions A and B (Understanding and Interpretation, and Analysis and Evaluation, respectively).
It would seem that for my interpretation, I had established a solid enough foundation, and demonstrated that I had a good enough grasp of the underlying concepts provided in the article, as well as the methods used to communicate them. Regrettably, it would seem that I had not examined the subjects enough, hence the appended comments of “go deeper” and “even more through analysis”.
Lastly, the least touched-upon Criterion, C. It would seem that my paper was coherent enough for the reader to follow, and ultimately I suppose that’s all good enough.
Point Two – “What do you still need to improve on?”
Moving on from the previous point, my largest failure would be in the A and B sectors – despite having a solid enough foundation, it would seem that I did not push hard enough for a more through examination of the source material. Instead, I more-or-less skimmed lightly over the concepts that I could have elaborated on.
Also, I need to better hone my matching of sources to claims, as well as the overall development of my claims. Clearly, the evidence I present is not a perfect 1:1 matchup to my claims, and my original idea, although being workable, was ultimately flawed.
Needless to say, this overall paper could be considered a failure.
Point Three – “What will be your specific target for next time?”
In the future, I shall pursue the creation of a more coherent thesis/claim; In order to achieve this, I will undertake a more through initial analysis and evidence complication process when reading the source material. Hopefully, this shall remedy the deficiencies noted above. Being my greatest weakness, this will be the prime issue I hope to address.