What standards of performance may an adjudicator reasonably expect of a participant or group of participants? The following comments are highly generalized. It is not the purpose of these descriptions toset up arbitrary standards. Each performance must be adjudicated on its own merits, and in the final analysis, each adjudicator must decide what rating each performance deserves.

Brief descriptions are given below of the type of performance that might be awarded the respective ratings in competition. These descriptions are offered, not as an attempt to pre-adjudicate any performance, but merely in the hope that they will provide background to assist the participant in understanding the adjudication process.

**NOTE: These Standards of Adjudication are the official standards for Junior Talent. They apply to all divisions except Bible Quizzing, which uses a different rubric for determining winners.


SUPERIOR (4.5 and above)

This rating represents the finest conceivable performance, worthy of the distinction of being recognized as among the very best. While the adjudicator might find some minor points to criticize and make some helpful suggestions for further improvement, the remarks would generally be complimentary for outstanding work.

EXCELLENT (3.5 - 4.4)

This rating reflects a solid performance in many respects, but not one worthy of the highest rating due to minor defects. Yet, it is a performance of distinction and quality. It is relatively easy for an adjudicator to comment on such a performance because the weaknesses stand out clearly against a generally first-rate background, and suggestions are usually focused on something specific and helpful.

GOOD (2.5 - 3.4)

This rating is awarded for a good performance, but one that is not outstanding. The performance shows the accomplishment and marked promise, but is lacking in one or more essential qualities. This rating indicates much room for improvement in several of the fundamental items listed on the adjudicator’s scoring sheet. The participant would have some basically fine qualities, and there should be ample opportunities for the adjudicator to make suggestions for sound improvement in those fundamental factors in which the performance revealed weaknesses.

FAIR (1.5 - 2.4)

This rating describes a performance that shows some obvious weaknesses. These may simply reflect a lack of rehearsal time or preparation. This rating represents a performance that is generally weak and uncertain. There are numerous errors, and the performance reveals basic weaknesses in most of the fundamental factors listed on the scoring sheet. The adjudicator will probably not devote much space to pointing out specific errors in the performance. The comments, however, will likely be encouraging and contain helpful suggestions for overall improvement.

POOR (1.0 - 1.4)

This rating indicates a performance that reveals much room for improvement. It indicates a performance in which participants reveal almost a complete lack of preparedness and understanding. In some cases, this may be due to contestants attempting to perform material that is far too advanced for their ability. The adjudicators will point out any commendable features and the basic weaknesses in the performance and will make suggestions for improvement. These comments should encourage the participants to work toward improvement so that they may qualify for a higher rating in the future.