Week 6: Cover Letter, Executive Summary
Executive summary: In Week 6, you will create an executive summary that accurately describes the entire report in a condensed one-page version. See pages 318–320 for a discussion and sample reports for examples.
Cover letter: You will also create your cover letter (or transmittal letter) and add it to your formal report. Information for this part of the project is on pages 314–316 of your text.

Cover letter and executive summary (it should also be included in your final report)
Your Course Project Executive Summary and Letter of Transmittal are due this week. Please see the Course Project Overview page in Introduction & Resources for additional information on this week’s Course Project assignments.
Submit the assignment.
RUBRIC
WRAP 2018 Rubric
WRAP 2018 Rubric
Criteria Ratings Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWRAP.CENTRAL IDEA
threshold: 3.0 pts 4.0 pts
Exemplary: The central idea responds directly to the assignment with exceptional insight and originality, producing a mature and consistent focus for the paper. The topic, angle, and purpose are clearly presented and consistently developed throughout the paper. 3.0 pts
GOOD: The central idea responds to the but lacks the specificity of a 4 paper. While the reader can understand the writer’s general purpose, the focus of the topic, angle, and purpose may be vague or inconsistent. 2.0 pts
Fair: The central idea attempts to respond to the assignment, but the writer’s topic, angle, and purpose is imprecisely expressed. The writer demonstrates limited insight into the problem or awareness of the audience, and supporting ideas lack development. 1.0 pts
Poor: The central idea is so vaguely or imprecisely expressed that its relationship to the assignment is difficult to discern. The paper is unfocused and the reader is confused about the writer’s purpose. Ideas show little insight or analytical ability. 0.0 pts
Does Not Meet Expectations: The response contains no discernible central idea, insight, or analysis.
4.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWRAP.DEVELOPMENT
threshold: 3.0 pts 4.0 pts
Exemplary: The central idea is supported through concrete details and specific examples that creatively and precisely establish and achieve the topic, angle, and purpose. Evidence is credible and appropriate to the topic, angle, and purpose. Analysis is original, relevant, and well suited to the evidence and a particular audience. 3.0 pts
Good: Support for the central idea is adequate. Most details and examples contribute to unity and help achieve the writer’s purpose. The relationship between some details and the central idea can be vague and lack precise clarity and relation to the topic, angle, and purpose. 2.0 pts
Fair: The use of details and examples to support the central idea is inconsistent. While the writer usually stays on the subject, some generalizations are not explained and some details do not relate to topic, angle, and/or purpose. Explanations and details may also borrow too closely from the prompt. 1.0 pts
Poor: Not enough detail has been included to support the central idea. Details typically do not relate to the paper’s topic, angle, or purposes. Copying from the prompt may substitute for original analysis. As a result, the central idea stays undeveloped or unclear, unity is weak, and the writer’s purpose is not achieved. 0.0 pts
Does Not Meet Expectations: The response fails to provide any support for the central idea, resulting in an undeveloped and unclear paper.
4.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWRAP.MECHANICS
threshold: 3.0 pts 4.0 pts
Exemplary: Sentence-level grammar, punctuation, capitalization, and spelling are firmly in the writer’s control. Mechanical elements are handled consistently and appropriately throughout. 3.0 pts
Good: A few minor errors in sentence-level grammar, punctuation, capitalization, or spelling are present, but they do not significantly distract the reader and do not interfere with meaning. 2.0 pts
Fair: Errors in grammar, punctuation, capitalization, or spelling sometimes distract the reader and interfere with meaning. 1.0 pts
Poor: Errors in grammar, punctuation, capitalization, or spelling are pervasive and frequently distract the reader and interfere with the meaning. 0.0 pts
Does Not Meet Expectations: The response includes significant errors in grammar, punctuation, capitalization, and spelling are pervasive and effectively block the meaning.
4.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWRAP.STRUCTURE
threshold: 3.0 pts 4.0 pts
Exemplary: A superior plan of organization is used. Ideas are arranged in an exceptionally clear and logical order consistent with the writer’s purpose and the audience’s needs. All ideas are clearly connected and sentences and paragraphs are woven together smoothly with effective use of topic sentences and transitions. 3.0 pts
Good: An appropriate organizational plan is generally followed, with only minor inconsistencies present. The ideas are usually arranged in a clear and logical order to meet the writer’s purpose and the audience’s needs. While ideas are connected, there are a few shifts in thought, weak topic sentences, or missing transitions that inhibit the smooth flow of ideas. 2.0 pts
Fair: An attempt to follow a plan of organization is apparent; however, the arrangement of ideas does not support both the writer’s purpose and/or the audience’s needs. Some ideas are not clearly connected. Topic sentences and transitions are vague. 1.0 pts
Poor: Arrangement of ideas does not support the writer’s purpose or the audience’s needs. Abrupt shifts in thought are common. The connections between sentences and paragraphs are often loose, and the reader has difficulty following the relationships among ideas. There are no topic sentences or transitions. 0.0 pts
Does Not Meet Expectations: The response includes no purposeful arrangement of ideas. The paper is consistently disjointed and lacks any clear organizational schema.
4.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWRAP.STYLE
threshold: 3.0 pts 4.0 pts
Exemplary: The distinctive voice of the writer is apparent. Tone is consistent and appropriate for the topic, audience, and purpose. Ideas are expressed clearly and concisely, and the writer varies sentence length and structure effectively. The diction is lively and characterized by active verbs and effective descriptive devices. 3.0 pts
Good: The style is competent but not distinctive. Tone is consistent and appropriate, though occasional lapses may occur. Some phrasing may be wordy, though clarity is not unduly affected. Diction is adequate, but some weak verbs or other stylistic weaknesses may occur. 2.0 pts
Fair: The style is adequate, though occasional awkwardness or inconsistency may create confusion. Tone is somewhat uneven. Clarity is reduced by problems such as wordiness, excessive passive voice, awkward constructions, weak verbs, repetitive structure, or hackneyed phrasing. 1.0 pts
Poor: Stylistic awkwardness or inconsistency interferes with the reading process. Tone is often inappropriate (e.g., impolite, brusque, overly familiar), or inconsistent. Problems such as wordiness, excessive passive voice, awkward constructions, weak verbs, repetitive structure, or hackneyed phrasing are common. 0.0 pts
Does Not Meet Expectation: The response includes to stylistic deficiencies and excesses. In addition, the writing contains enough illogical and poorly constructed sentences to confuse the reader. The tone conveys little sense of addressing a specific reader. Diction is typically imprecise or nonstandard.
4.0 pts
Total Points: 20.0