July 07, 2020
Contact: Young Fabians

Political Writing Competition

We are delighted to invite you to take part in the first ever Young Fabians Political Writing Competition!

  • Articles should be around 650 words in length.
  • Articles should be on a topic that the writer is passionate about.
  • Submissions will be narrowed down to 12 finalists by the Young Fabian Executive Committee.
  • Jason Cowley, Editor for the New Statesman will review the final 12 submissions and judge a winner and two runners-up.
  • 12 finalists will be featured on the Young Fabians blog
  • A winner and two runners-up will be featured on the New Statesman website, as well as the Young Fabians print magazine, Antics.
  • The deadline for entry is midnight on the 31st July 2020. 
  • Articles should be sent to amber.khan@youngfabians.org.uk

 

Important Dates

8th July, 6pm:  Submissions open
31st July, 12am: Submissions close
27th July - 3rd August: Executive Committee chooses 12 finalists. 
4th August, 8pm: Finalists notified 
Early August: Jason Cowley judges a winner and two runners up from the 12 finalists. 
Mid-August: Finalists notified of outcome.
End of August: Winner and runners-up featured on the New Statesman website.
TBC: Winner and runners-up featured in Antics magazine.

Marking Criteria

 

Poor (0 points)

Fair (1 point)

Good (2 points)

Excellent (3 points)

Main Idea

The article does not have a main theme or idea. It is and/or off topic and/or completely unclear.

The article has some things to say about the topic but wanders off. It is difficult to say what the main theme/idea is.

The article is on topic and somewhat focused. With little work, one can say what the main theme/idea is. However, there are some confliciting thread and/or tangents.

 

The article is on topic and very focused. I can easily say what the main theme/idea is.

Organisation

The article lacks logical organisation There is little to no unity in the ideas presented and it is very difficult for one to follow the logic and reasoning of the response.

 

The article has some organisation. There is little coherence and it is difficult for one to follow the logic and reasoning of the response.

 

The article has good overall organisation and unity of ideas. The writing is coherent and one can somewhat follow the logic and reasoning of the response.

 

The article is very organised and well considered. The writing is coherent and one can easily follow the logic and reasoning of the response.

 

Content

The article includes little information with few or no details or unrelated details.

 

The article includes little information with few or no details or unrelated details. Some ideas are present, but they not particularly developed or supported.

 

The article includes sufficient information and supporting details. Content is well-presented and argued, ideas are detailed, developed and supported with evidence and details.

 

The article includes in-depth information and exceptional supporting details that are fully developed. Ideas are detailed, well-developed, supported with specific evidence details.

 

Sources

The article does not use sources.

 

The article uses some sources, but they are not integrated well. The sources do not support the ideas in the article.

 

The article uses sources and they are well-integrated. The sources support the ideas in the article.

The article uses sources and they are exceptionally well-integrated. The sources effectively support the ideas in the article.

 

Grammar and Mechanics

The article contains extensive grammatical errors.

The article shows a pattern of errors in spelling, grammar, syntax and/or punctuation.

The article contains a few errors in grammar, spelling, syntax and punctuation, but not many.

 

The article shows excellent grammar, spelling, syntax and punctuation.