Q: Does submission meet entry requirements?
Mark 1: Yes/No
Q: Is the overall layout and design appealing?
Mark 1: Poster appears haphazard, not well thought out.
Mark 2: Poster demonstrates some knowledge of layout and design. A few flaws in terms of organization of text, visuals, etc.
Mark 3: Poster shows some knowledge of layout and design. Fairly good organization of text and pictures.
Mark 4: Poster utilizes good design and layout practices, (e.g. use of white space, etc.). Is easy to read and follow.
Q: Is the slogan and text used effectively?
Mark 1: Slogan/text is not used, is difficult to read, or is not convincing/relevant.
Mark 2: Slogan/text used to some effect, but with some errors or weakness.
Mark 3: Slogan and text are used well to convey the message.
Mark 4: Effective, persuasive slogan and/or text – gets message across convincingly.
Q: Are visuals used effectively?
Mark 1: Visual not used or not used effectively.
Mark 2: Visuals used somewhat effectively.
Mark 3: Visuals incorporated fairly well into poster.
Mark 4: Striking visuals work well to convey message about healthy lifestyles.
Q: Rate the overall effectiveness of the poster in communicating the desired message.
Mark 1: Overall the poster is not effective in conveying the healthy lifestyle living message to youth.
Mark 2: The poster is only somewhat effective in conveying the healthy lifestyle living message – but message may be weak or not convincing.
Mark 3: The poster is fairly effective in conveying the healthy lifestyle living message to youth.
Mark 4: Overall the poster is very effective and convincing in conveying the healthy lifestyle living message to youth.
Q: Does submission meet entry requirements?
Mark 1: Yes/No
Q: How well was a script or story developed?
Mark 1: No evidence of a script or storyboard. Scenes are disconnected with no underlying story.
Mark 2: It is evident that a script/story was prepared before camera work. The video tells a connected story, but the style and mood do not suit the content. Some aspects of the story are disjointed.
Mark 3: It is evident that a script/story was prepared before camera work. The video tells a story in a mood or style that suits the content.
Mark 4: A script/story is easily depicted which suits the mood/style of the content. Story builds and follows a logical arc.
Q: Was the use of actors or presenters appropriate?
Mark 1: The video features (a) person(s) not doing much, who did not add to the value of the video.
Mark 2: Actors were essential for the understanding of the video.
Mark 3: Actors were active and assisted in explaining the video.
Mark 4: The use of actors was used to fully convey the message of the video.
Q: Did the use of location(s) match the overall script/storyline?
Mark 1: Location did not match the storyline.
Mark 2: Location somewhat assisted the storyline but could have been better.
Mark 3: Location use was good, but more work required to assist the storyline.
Mark 4: Location was appropriate and assisted in achieving the storyline.
Q: Rate the use of props and/or special production touches.
Mark 1: None were used OR the ones used did not work with the storyline.
Mark 2: Props and special production touches were used, but not well or effective to assist the storyline.
Mark 3: Some props etc. were used, but could have been used more effectively to support the storyline.
Mark 4: All props and special production touches used were appropriate and effective.
Q: Was the camera work and lighting effective?
Mark 1: Shaky camera shoots, excessive panning and zooming distract the viewer. Or, video is static with no change in camera angle or close- ups. Lighting is too bright or dark.
Mark 2: No shaky footage, pans & zooms are limited. Main subject is located slightly off centre. Good lighting choices. Additional lighting is used. Few shadows or glares are present.
Mark 3: Good mix of shots, video is steady with few pans & zooms. Close- ups are used to focus attention. Video shows evidence of good composition (ratio of image, line of gaze, pan/tilts, and movements). Additional lighting is used. Almost no shadows or glares are present.
Mark 4: Shows excellent understanding of the camera work elements, & lighting usage. Excellent shots, video is steady with few pans & zooms. Close-ups are used to focus attention. Video shows evidence of excellent composition (ratio of image, line of gaze, pan/tilts, movements) Additional lighting is used. No shadows or glares are present.
Q: Was the editing seamless?
Mark 1: Careless editing. Entire video seems like a collection of unrelated cuts.
Mark 2: Editing has no jumps or glitches. Most shots can be understood only by someone who is familiar with the surroundings or most shots do not fit sequence.
Mark 3: Accurate editing techniques. Some shots can be understood only by someone who is familiar with the surroundings or some shots do not add to sequence.
Mark 4: Excellent understanding of editing techniques. Shots flow seamlessly together.
Q: Was the sound/music appropriate and quality of audio adequate?
Mark 1: Careless use of music. Poor audio quality – e.g. some dialogue is unintelligible.
Mark 2: Audio is clear and appropriate.
Mark 3: Accurate sound techniques with appropriate choice of sound/music.
Mark 4: Excellent understanding of sound recording and music/sound choices.
Q: Was the overall story/content appropriate for the target audience of 12 to 15 year olds?
Mark 1: Overall content was not age appropriate – e.g. did not at all address the healthy living issue from the perspective of the target age group.
Mark 2: Content was somewhat appropriate for the 12 to 15 year-old age range, but some elements were off target.
Mark 3: Content was appropriate for the 12 to 15 year-old age range, with very few elements that were off target. Content addresses motivations, concerns of youth in terms of healthy living.
Mark 4: Content was completely fitting for the target audience – addressing the motivations and concerns of youth in the target age group.
Q: How well did the story/script support a healthy living message? Would it persuade the target audience to make healthy choices?
Mark 1: Sketchy coverage of topic and overall is not convincing or persuasive at all.
Mark 2: Topic presented with basic points covered – somewhat convincing or persuasive.
Mark 3: Topic presented persuasively, with good insights.
Mark 4: Topic thoroughly explored with interesting supporting information or unique point of view. Overall provides a compelling message to convince youth to adopt a healthy lifestyle.