Rubric
Use this scorecard for chart, map, dashboard, and statistical-figure reviews. It is for diagnosis and prioritization, not aesthetic policing.
Score each dimension from 0 to 5. A 5 is excellent, 3 is usable but improvable, 1 is seriously weak, and 0 is absent or actively misleading.
Dimensions
Analytical purpose: the display answers a clear quantitative question and the title or caption frames that question honestly.
Graphical integrity: scales, baselines, transformations, encodings, denominators, uncertainty, and source support a truthful reading.
Data visibility: relevant observations, variation, outliers, distribution, or uncertainty are visible rather than hidden behind excessive aggregation.
Comparison power: ordering, alignment, scales, grouping, and labels make the intended comparison easy.
Economy of means: most marks encode data or useful structure; decoration and redundancy do not compete with evidence.
Annotation and context: labels, units, definitions, source, events, thresholds, and caveats appear close enough to the data to reduce ambiguity.
Accessibility and robustness: text is legible, color is not the only carrier of meaning, contrast is adequate, and the chart works in its intended medium.
Overall interpretation
30 to 35: strong display; focus on polish or publication constraints.
23 to 29: usable, with one or two high-impact fixes.
15 to 22: materially weak; redesign the comparison or restore missing context.
Below 15: likely misleading or ineffective; start from the analytical question and rebuild.
Prioritization
When time is short, fix issues in this order: misleading magnitude, missing denominators or uncertainty, wrong chart for the task, hidden data, weak comparison, accessibility, then cosmetic cleanup.