Overview
Rubrics and marking schemes describe what distinguishes a strong piece of work from an adequate one: depth of critical analysis, use of evidence, structure, referencing, adherence to the brief. Yet many students only read them after the grade comes back. A pre-submission review closes that gap while there is still time to act.
We map your draft to each criterion and descriptor, identify the evidence a marker would point to, and note what is missing or misaligned with the brief — a literature section that describes rather than evaluates, a discussion that does not return to the research question, a word count well over limit. For theses, we use the program's assessment criteria or examiner guidance; for journal manuscripts, the author guidelines and relevant reporting checklist.
Our feedback is diagnostic, not a predicted grade. We comment on the work and suggest what to strengthen; you make the changes. Alongside the review, we walk you through a self-assessment routine so you can apply it to future assignments without us.
Who it’s for and the problems it solves
This is for you if you are…
- Undergraduate and master's students with a draft and a rubric or marking scheme who want feedback before the deadline
- Dissertation and thesis writers checking a complete draft against program criteria
- Doctoral candidates preparing for submission who want a reader focused on examiner expectations
- Researchers checking a manuscript against journal author guidelines and reporting checklists such as CONSORT, PRISMA, STROBE or COREQ
- Professionals submitting assessed portfolios or capstone reports
Common problems we help with
- You have a rubric but are not sure how to tell whether your draft meets the higher bands
- Previous feedback said 'too descriptive' or 'needs more critical analysis' and you are not sure you have fixed it
- You have been too close to the draft to see whether it answers the question set
- Your manuscript was desk-rejected before and you want to check it against the author guidelines first
- Your supervisor has limited time and you want an additional reader before sending the final version
What’s included — and what isn’t
Included
- Close reading of the assessment brief, rubric or marking scheme, and any learning outcomes attached to the task
- Criterion-by-criterion commentary on your draft, citing specific passages as evidence of strengths and gaps
- Check of compliance items: word count, required sections, formatting, citation style, appendices, declarations
- For manuscripts: check against author guidelines and the relevant EQUATOR Network reporting checklist
- Prioritized revision list, ordered by likely effect on how the work meets the criteria
- A self-assessment walkthrough using your rubric, which you can repeat on the revised draft
- Optional second look at revised sections before the deadline
Not included
- Predicting or promising a grade, mark band, pass or acceptance
- Rewriting sections of graded work — we comment and explain; you revise
- Reviewing work during a timed or take-home exam, or where your course forbids external feedback
- Replacing your supervisor's or instructor's guidance, which takes precedence where they differ
What you receive
- Rubric feedback matrix
- A table with each criterion, the evidence found in your draft, the gap relative to the higher descriptors and a concrete suggestion, all in plain language.
- Annotated draft
- Margin comments linking specific passages to criteria, pointing out where analysis is thin, evidence missing or the brief not addressed. Comments do not rewrite your text.
- Priority revision list
- The five to ten changes most likely to strengthen the work, ordered so you can stop at any point before the deadline.
- Self-assessment guide
- A one-page routine tailored to your rubric: questions to ask of each section and how to find the evidence yourself.
How it works
Share brief, rubric and draft
You send the assessment brief, marking criteria, the draft and any feedback you have already received. We confirm external feedback is permitted for this task.
Criteria mapping
We read the criteria first, then the draft, mapping each part of your work to what the rubric rewards.
Feedback delivery
You receive the feedback matrix, annotated draft and priority list.
Self-assessment session
A short call to discuss the feedback and practice assessing one section yourself using the rubric.
Frameworks we review against
- Analytic rubrics
- Criteria with level descriptors (for example 'critical evaluation' from limited to sophisticated). We quote the descriptors and show where your draft sits.
- Holistic marking schemes
- Band descriptors for the whole piece, common in UK-style grading. We identify the features that typically separate adjacent bands.
- Learning outcomes
- Module or program outcomes that the assessment is designed to test, useful when the rubric is brief.
- Thesis examiner criteria
- Originality, contribution, methodological rigor, coherence and presentation, as defined in your institution's regulations.
- EQUATOR reporting guidelines
- CONSORT for trials, PRISMA 2020 for systematic reviews, STROBE for observational studies, COREQ or SRQR for qualitative research, and others listed by the EQUATOR Network.
- Journal author guidelines
- Scope, article type, word limits, structured abstract, data availability and ethics statements, figure specifications.
Reading the rubric the way a marker does
Rubric language is compressed. 'Demonstrates critical engagement with the literature' usually means comparing sources, identifying where they disagree and why, and weighing their methods — not summarizing each in turn. 'Coherent structure' often means each section visibly advances the answer to the question. We translate each criterion into observable features you can find, or fail to find, in your draft.
We then look for evidence of each feature and quote it back to you. That makes the feedback verifiable: you can see exactly which paragraph we are talking about and judge for yourself.
Learning to assess your own work
The aim is for you to need this service less over time. The self-assessment guide turns your rubric into a set of questions you can ask of each section, such as 'Where do I explain why this finding matters?' or 'Which sentences compare two sources?', and suggests techniques like reverse outlining to check structure.
Students who use the guide on their next assignment often catch the same issues themselves, which is the best outcome we can offer.
- Reverse outline: write one line per paragraph and check it against the question
- Highlight evaluative sentences in one color and descriptive ones in another
- Check every criterion has at least one passage you would point a marker to
- Read the brief again last, looking only for instructions you have missed
What the work can look like
Illustrative example — fictional data
Sample excerpt: rubric feedback matrix
An undergraduate submitted a 3,000-word management essay draft with a four-criterion analytic rubric. The rows below are invented to show the format of our feedback.
Criterion: critical analysis
Evidence: section 2 summarizes four studies accurately. Gap: the higher descriptor asks for evaluation of 'strengths and limitations of evidence'; no study is evaluated. Suggestion: compare the two survey-based studies' samples and explain why their findings differ.
Criterion: answering the question
Evidence: the introduction restates the question well. Gap: the conclusion discusses motivation in general rather than returning to 'to what extent'. Suggestion: state your overall judgment and the main reason for it.
Compliance
Word count 3,420 excluding references against a 3,000 limit with a 10% tolerance; trim at least 120 words. Harvard referencing is mostly consistent; three in-text citations lack page numbers for direct quotes.
Illustrative example. The essay, rubric and feedback are fictional and do not represent a real client's work.
What you’ll need to provide
- The assessment brief or task instructions and the rubric, marking scheme or examiner criteria
- Your draft in an editable format
- Any previous feedback from instructors or supervisors
- Confirmation that your course permits external feedback on drafts, or its policy on proofreading and support
- Your deadline
You don’t need everything ready to ask for a quote — tell us what you have and we’ll say what’s missing.
What affects price and turnaround
Price depends on
- Length of the draft and complexity of the rubric
- Level of work (coursework essay, dissertation, thesis, manuscript)
- Whether a follow-up review of revised sections is included
- Whether a reporting checklist audit is required for a manuscript
- Time before your deadline
Turnaround depends on
- Draft length and completeness
- Receiving the rubric and brief together with the draft
- Your deadline; allow enough time to revise after feedback
Every project is quoted individually. How we price our work.
Questions people ask before starting
Can you tell me what grade I will get?
No. Grading depends on the marker, the cohort and moderation, and predicting it would be misleading. We tell you how your draft aligns with each criterion and what would strengthen it.
Is it allowed to get feedback like this?
Many institutions allow general feedback from tutors or writing centers, while some restrict external help on particular assessments. Check your course policy; if you are unsure, we can help you ask. We do not review work where outside help is forbidden.
Will you correct my grammar as well?
Our comments focus on the criteria. If language is part of the rubric, we point out patterns with examples, but a line-by-line edit is a separate service and may be restricted for graded work.
I don't have a rubric. Can you still help?
Yes. We use the assessment brief, learning outcomes and your program's generic marking criteria. For manuscripts, the journal's author guidelines and the relevant reporting checklist take the rubric's place.
What if my supervisor's feedback conflicts with yours?
Follow your supervisor. They know the program and the examiners. We can help you understand their comments and how they relate to the written criteria.