Same thing here with the all caps for emphasis; you don't want to alienate your stakeholder or make them feel as though you are being hostile.

Be cautious with using all caps for emphasis, especially when speaking to a more formal audience. All caps can have the same/similar connotations as yelling, and in some cases any indication of "raising your voice" and can damage ethos. A double italics/bold, or even increasing font size is a great alternative.

This is a much stronger integration of the visual here.

A visual break here would help a lot design wise - you start to get at this visual cue via the bolding here, but it's not quite as emphasized as it could be, especially since you are now speaking more directly to your stakeholder.

Especially for a website like this, you want 1) a little more of a boundary between the image and the background, and 2) to utilize figure descriptions so that you can be as explicit as possible as to the relevance of this image to your larger point. Otherwise, you're hoping that your reader interprets the relationship of the text and image in the same way you intend them to, which is a dangerous risk to take, or worse, you leave them thinking the image is arbitrary/just taking up space.

Not sure why there is a period between the y and the p here?

I love the inclusion of an audio reading of the website here. Especially since your larger argument revolves around things like accessibility and inclusion, this was a great ethos move.

These should definitely be hyperlinks, if not as the in text citations, then certainly down here, to better utilize the chosen mode here.

Your reasoning here is sound, though I will note that the addition of the graphic appears arbitrary. Especially in a website form, you want every word to matter, and every visual to help strengthen your argument, so a proxy graph kind of detracts from that larger argument building power.

Nice incorporation of a potential counterargument here.

I wonder if it might be useful to your stakeholder to have these in text citations as hyperlinks, so that he could click to the further studies as he reads if he wanted?

It's subtle, but once you addressed your stakeholder specifically, you started writing more as though this was a letter than a standard research paper. Well done.

Signposts like these are also why adding descriptions to figures are important; this will help clarify that you mean for your audience to engage with both of these examples as they are reading your piece, rather than getting to this point and then going back to watch them (as I did). Some subscript and metalanguage will help your reader go through your pieces parts in the order you intend.

Careful here. You started this as though it was an open letter, but style-wise, this is reading more like a standard research paper. Keep your target audience in mind throughout all of your style choices, both visual and linguistic.

A little more context here as to why this particular figure was chosen would help. Remember, we don't want our images to just take up space - we want them to be explicitly relevant to whatever text/linguistic mode is around them; usually, this can be accomplished through the use of figure descriptions. These descriptions also help prevent your target audience from making an alternate interpretation of the image to the one you want them to as well, which helps keep your argument strong.

Fantastic way to make it clear to whom you are addressing as your stakeholder here. The animation up top and the overall style of the website itself is also very impressive.

Aye - you ended up falling into the "Piece A does this, Piece B does that" trap. That is, you've given me a great comparative summary... but without a central argument to point these comparisons back to, it doesn't quite meet the genre expectations of a comparative analysis. Getting your reasons and evidence pointed towards a specific claim (which you start to imply in your title's sub header about design and content) would help.

Need a little bit more here - what makes the blank sidebar so awful, why is it too much space between paragraphs? Need a little more than your own reactions here (that is, back up your reactions with some theory/evidence).

I like what you're doing with the design work here, but I'd like to see your analysis pointed more directly at a central argument. Without that direction, I'm left a little unsure as a reader as to what I will need to do with this information, especially knowing I've still got a few other sections to work through before any concluding thoughts. Getting a clearer thesis statement up top would let you point more directly back to that central claim throughout the piece, giving a stronger analysis overall.

I'm not sure I dig the Well repetition here. I can see how you might have wanted it to link these two sections, but rather than the repetition emphasizing this connection, I find it a bit... repetitive, but not in the way you probably wanted.

Careful here - I know a lot of people who would fight you on this, so a citation might be necessary w/r to who thinks they're the "authority."

I love both of these audio reactions lol

Careful here - if the goal of this is to get Purdue to change it's ways, you might want to be a little softer in your criticisms.

Also, to what end is this comparison leading us? I've got an idea that your argument is about the role of design, but so far I'm having to infer it (rather than knowing it directly) which could weaken your analysis.

I like how you've laid this out so I know exactly what I'm getting into as a reader right from the start.

You can see my marginal comments with the link in your global comment like this!

This is absolutely excellent Selena. There are a handful of places I would have liked a little more explicit pointing to evidence/further unpacking your reasoning with examples, but overall you've done a tremendous job here.

Ohhhhh excellent move here. Love the clear thesis statement in the blue. Nicely done.

I really like this initial set up. I know right from the start what you will probably argue, and how you will reach that conclusion, so as a reader I feel prepared to move through the actual analysis right off the bat.

Alright - the really strong things here are your purposeful use of the design, and you've moved through each piece in turn. However, without a larger argument to point back to, you've fallen into the "Piece A does this, Piece B does that" trap, which provides a comparative summary, but not quite a comparative analysis. Getting a clearer main argument that all of this information can be pointed towards will help move this more firmly from summary to analysis.

I love this image and want to use it from now on lol

How and in what ways? We want a little more unpacking here as to the how (along with an interpretation of the evidence) to better drive home the analysis here. Usually this happens when we have to point our ideas back to our central thesis, but without a thesis statement this step can get missed pretty easily.

While this is a good set up for what you're about to do in this piece, it does not actually tell us to what end (or, your larger argument) completing said process will accomplish. In other words, where's your thesis statement?

Missing author bio and additional secondary sources.

Rather than a personal take on these pieces, the assignment here asked you to make a larger claim about design. More time needed to be spent with the assignment sheet, as a number of missteps in this piece were covered in class and through our in class practice activities. As is, the piece here offers a comparative summary, with a binary argument, rather than an integrated comparative analysis making a larger argument about design, as was required by the assignment prompt.

You've fallen into the exact trap the assignment sheet warns not to do: "Piece A does this, Piece B does that." Rather, comparative analysis requires the use of the comparison points as evidence for a larger claim, in this case about design and content. In the either/or set up, you're actually writing a comparative summary, rather than analysis.

Careful here. In class, we talked about how we want to avoid binary stances in our analyses, as it leaves us in a position where the answer can only be either/or, better/worse, yes/no etc. Rather, we want to build stronger analyses in the shades of grey, so we can be nuanced in our claims. This usually means focusing on the how, why, or to what extents.

Without giving us some explanation, it's not clear that the two pieces above are the pieces you'll be discussing. We talked in class about what assumptions you can and cannot make about your audience - familiarity or recognition without captions or some other kind of sign posting, they've got no idea why this information is relevant.

Okay, but to what end? Rather than making an arguable claim, you've just told your audience what the piece is going to do/how it is going to be set up. This gives us a road map, but not a thesis, so I'm left to guess what the purpose of this process is as far as your larger argument.

You're way clearer in your main argument here in your conclusion. Restructuring is necessary throughout to get this up top so you can more directly point back to it in your analysis. This would also help to more firmly move your evidence points from summary to analysis as well.

Careful here - because you've got nothing to point a synthesis back to, you've pretty quickly fallen into the "Piece A does this, Piece B does that" approach, which actually only provides a comparative summary, rather than a comparative analysis (as discussed in class and noted on the assignment sheet).

So, while your questions here are implying a main argument, you're hoping your audience draws the same conclusions (always a risky move). Being explicit in your thesis statement gives you the ability to point directly back to your main argument throughout your analysis, which often provides a stronger argument overall.

To what end? A little preview of what you intend to argue would help your reader transition more smoothly here.

Incomplete sentence here.

I love opening this with a question. That gets me primed as a reader to know right off the bat that you're likely to engage in an argument, so I can set my expectations accordingly.

1) I see your thesis much more clearly here in the conclusion. Work to get this more explicitly in the intro as well, so you can point all of your evidence back to it.

2) You would have been better able to address the needs of the assignment prompt here by making an argument about how the design elements of each of these pieces serves as one avenue of such an analysis as mentioned here. Unfortunately as it currently stands, because this focuses more on the content rather than the design elements, this piece doesn't really do what the assignment asks.

We've done a little bit of a jump here, but rather than providing a comparative analysis of the two materials' design choices (as required by the assignment prompt) it seems you've dived more into a comparison each's content. While this could provide a fruitful analysis, it doesn't actually complete the task required by the assignment prompt.

Careful here. While this question invites the taking of a stance, it is not actually you taking one, which means you're missing a thesis statement/have an implied, rather than an explicit, thesis. In some cases this works, but it's always a big risk - your reader might not put the pieces parts of your argument into the same claim that you would, so leaving them without a clear thesis can undermine your entire argument.

Oh I like opening this with a question. It lets me get a sense that you'll be making an argument right off the bat.

I'd recommend centering this rather than keeping it to the side, just because the white space on the right looks a little off. You've done a great job with this overall.

Excellent integration of images here. I think you could have played with the color contrast here just a little bit (maybe having the "Why it Works" boxes pop out as the same color throughout, but different from the majority color in each section, for example) but your content analysis is very strong.

Excellent road mapping here as well; also, I love how you incorporated the title into the banner image. Wonderful work so far.

A nice, clear thesis statement here. I like knowing right off the bat what argument to expect throughout the rest of the piece.

Aha! Found your argument! Your reasoning and evidence are strong here, we just need a little restructuring to get this thesis up at the top, rather than only coming in here at the end. That way all of your talking points can point right back to this directly, making your piece stronger overall.

Careful here - you've fallen into the trap of "Piece A does this, Piece B does that," which, as noted in class and on the assignment sheet, is not actually comparative analysis, but comparative summary. Getting this information pointed more directly at a specific argument will help push this more firmly into analysis territory.

This would make more sense as your opening piece before moving to a definition of rhetoric. Here, I'm also seeing you inch closer to an argument, but as of right now we're still only in the land of observation. A little more clarity as to what you intend to claim will move this from comparative summary to comparative analysis.

We've jumped right in here, but it's not entirely clear just yet what you'll be doing with the piece, or what you're arguing. The initial sub heading under the title gives us an idea, but you need a stronger intro paragraph and a more explicit thesis. As it currently stands, I'm left guessing what your actual argument with this analysis is going to be.

I like how you yourself use repetition in these sections. This is a nice, well synthesized argument and I can tell you're trying to make purposeful moves with your visual style. Nice work.

Like the color change here to make it pop.

This might have been a good place to hint at addressing potential counter arguments. Scholarly article genre conventions exist for a reason, so confronting those reasons will strengthen your larger point.

Excellent. This direct discussion with your audience is a great move here.

I love the use of we here, but haven't actually seen a place where you've defined exactly who that we includes. A simple sign post like "we as writers" or "we as writers and scholars" would help clarify.

Excellent. I know right off the bat what you'll be discussing and the argument you'll be defending. Nice job.

I'm not entirely sure I'm following the visual logic of each section here. I can tell there was a reach towards color coding, but as a reader I can't tell if I'm supposed to care only about the colors, or also the placement, so I'm left a little confused for both.

How and in what ways? Without the above information being pointed to a specific argument about design, this reads as a comparative summary, rather than a comparative analysis, which is the exact kind of "Piece A does this, Piece B does that" approach the assignment sheet notes as not being appropriate for this particular genre of writing. Without a larger claim to point back to, you're not actually performing analysis here, though the piece itself may be visually appealing.

We seem to be jumping into definitions here, but that leaves me as a reader unsure what you want me to be gaining from these definitions and the following overview. In other words, what is your main argument/where is your thesis statement?

This should be a colon : rather than a semi colon

These next few pieces are... missing. Not sure if you ran out of time, or if there was an issue with saving the information, especially since some areas below this are filled out again?

Ah! Here you're on the cusp of a nuanced argument. Get things more directly pointed to these kinds of ideas where there are many shades of grey to avoid being limited by the better/worse binary in order to push past an either/or stance into a stronger analysis.

You've fallen into the trap noted to try to avoid on the assignment sheet, where rather than a synthesized analysis (the goal of comparative analysis as a genre) you've starting going "Piece A does this, Piece B does that." We want to push a little further past this and get the comparisons pointed towards a central argument to be able to more firmly push the piece into analysis rather than summary/assessment here.

To what benefit is this little summary when the headings also provide a brief outline as well? Perhaps defining these elements would make this part seem more relevant.

To what end? I'm seeing you describe what you're about to do, but not seeing the larger argument you intend this information to be pointed towards. In other words, where is your thesis statement/what is your main argument?

I love this. No complaints. Excellent job, and you'll probably see an email from me asking if you would be willing to anonymize it and let me use it as an example for future students :)

My only note here would be to center this box, especially since you talk about these two elements coming together. The visual then would coincide with the content a little more (the timeline coming together to a centered bottom).

Excellent. I love all of this, and your use of style through the interface is magnificent.

Arguing an author's intent is a big fish to try to fry. I applaud your ambition.

I love the title and the banner image. I come in right off the bat knowing to expect a comparison, and the title lets me know what the comparison will be about. My only note here is diametrically might not be the best word for your sub header, as the two pieces are quite related, rather than on opposite ends (such as if you were comparing say, a geometry equation with a poem, for example).

Here is where you start to get into something that could potentially be re-worked into a larger argument, since you're setting the assumption that having visuals gives one piece an advantage over the other. Some restructuring to make sure all of your talking points defend such a claim, and making the claim itself explicit as your thesis statement would help move this piece from summary to analysis.

Overall I like the style organization you've got going on here, but you've fallen into exactly what the assignment sheet warns against doing, where you're basically stating "Piece A does this, Piece B does that." Comparative analysis asks us to take that process a step further, and point those similarities/differences towards a specific argument.

This shows as a broken image for me unfortunately, but I'm assuming it's something relevant to the discussion of headings here.

So would your argument be that visual rhetoric is more effective than linguistic rhetoric? I'm still not entirely sure of the larger point you're aiming to make with your analysis.

Okay, but what is your larger argument as evidenced by doing such a comparison (the main thing a comparative analysis asks you to do)? Without pointing this information towards a specific claim, you're not actually performing analysis so much as offering a summary of what these two pieces do. A clearer thesis statement would help here.

I have a feeling this isn't supposed to be here?

Missing author bio required by assignment.

You've not actually made a argument in this piece. Instead, you've fallen into exactly what the assignment sheet warns against doing - simply moving from "Piece A does this, Piece B does that" instead of using the comparisons as a means of generating an argument (the actual work a comparative analysis piece must do). In addition, I'm not seeing much, if any engagement with the interface as a means of elevating your content, so this doesn't really fit the criteria of the assignment on either the content or style portions.

While this does a great job of explaining these two pieces, it doesn't quite make an argument about them. Rather, what is your larger claim that one of these pieces being more or less effective is pointing towards?

You've got a period here that I don't think is supposed to be here.

You don't need the article here, since visual rhetoric is a concept rather than a concrete object.

In what contexts? For what audiences? This is part of why the better/worse argument is so limiting: how effective a piece is/can be depends entirely on its rhetorical contexts rather than being an objective call that can be made. That's why we have to construct an argument in the first place.

Having this centered rather than to the side would help drive home the visual cue that it is context information rather than associated with only one or the other pieces. As it currently stands, this reads more like only the Kontra box is associated with this information, since both are on the left.

While I like the color coordination of these two areas, you've fallen into the trap of "Piece A does this, Piece B does this" that we specifically talked about wanting to avoid when discussing this project. Rather, comparative analysis asks for a synthesized argument based on the similarities and differences of the two pieces, not merely a summary of those similarities/differences.

Much more purposeful image incorporation here.

Without clearly captioning or otherwise pointing to the intent of this image in the piece, it comes off arbitrary. That is, as a reader, I'm not sure how this picture is supposed to better inform my understanding of the content around it.

We seem to be missing an actual thesis statement - so far you've described what you will be doing, and some context that is relevant to that description, but I'm not seeing a larger claim being made with these two materials used as evidence (the goal of a comparative analysis, as noted on the assignment sheet).

Careful here - as noted in class and on the assignment sheet, we want to avoid better/worse arguments, since these lock us into a binary argument. Rather, analysis asks us to get into the layers of nuance in the grey areas, in order to avoid being limited by either/or stances.

A little more push here - we want our conclusions at the college level to do a little more than just summarize. This is usually where we'd point to the larger exigence of our argument, but in general you've done a great job throughout.

I like the use of bold in these two boxes in this section to really drive your point home.

Ideas get a little jumbled here just with the visual - I think a break with a transition header between your green and blue sections might have helped the organization a little more than just the color differentials by themselves, but your overall content and argument are quite strong.

I like the quick summaries here, alongside the meta-language above that clearly expects the reader to be familiar with these pieces before continuing with your analysis. Nice work!

You're alluding to, but not quite outright stating, what could potentially be a very strong argument here. A little more clarity and explicitness in your thesis statement would increase your rhetorical stance here.

Aha! So your actual argument here is about usability, rather than better/worse, which lets you get more into the shades of grey. A little restructuring of your argument and thesis statement would help move this from great to excellent.

While the images here seem a bit arbitrary, your written content is strong and I like the overall style, but images could certainly be more purposefully integrated to help further elevate and make your point. Screen shots from both documents you're working with, for example, would have been one way to really strengthen your reasoning with hard, concrete evidence.

Your reasoning here is very strong, but could be stronger with some concrete (either visual or quoted) evidence so the reader can see for themselves rather than just taking your word for it.

This section seems like it's got the potential to move more deeply into argument territory, as you're actually making a claim about use and context rather than "better" or "worse."

Same thing here - this tells us what you're doing in the piece, but doesn't actually tell us your main argument. This is the issue with binary stances - they leave us in the realm of summary and description, rather than argument and analysis, because they are so closed/limited.

Careful here. As discussed in class, better/worse arguments are binary, which is very limiting when it comes to analysis. Ideally, we want an analysis that lands us in the nuanced shades of grey rather than taking an either/or stance.

Yes! Your argument comes through much clearer in your conclusion - a little restructuring organizationally would really help this piece pop. Your style choices and layout work really well with your main points regardless, though. Nice work!

Ahh, you're getting way more into your larger argument in these sections. So, a simple revision of the thesis to better capture not only what you will do with the piece, but what claim you end up actually making in your piece would really strengthen the overall rhetorical effect.

Great meta language here, and your visual style so far works quite well to help elevate the content.

To what end? This is a great explanation of what your piece will do, but doesn't actually tell me the argument you will be making. One thing being better or worse than another is not a very strong analysis, since it ends up taking on a binary form (as we discussed in class). Need some clarification as to the larger argument and its exigence here.

Love the directness of the initial heading here; I know exactly what I'm getting into as soon as I get started reading.

This all needs to be much further fleshed out and pointed towards a specific argument. Otherwise, what you've provided is almost entirely summary, and it is unclear how and why each pieces part is relevant to a larger claim about content and style as required by the assignment sheet. The incorporation of evidence could also have been much stronger, especially since Sutori grants the ability to integrate images and screen shots. At present, the only image being the NCTE logo, without a more explicit caption as to its relevance for your argument, ends up being arbitrary.

To what end? What do you want to say/what is the larger point you are making by doing so? Without this, the piece is not actually an analysis.

To what end? This is an explanation of what you're doing, but doesn't actually state and argument that is being made based on these two pieces as evidence (which is what an analysis requires). Without such an argument, the pieces parts end up being only summary, since they are not pointed towards a larger claim.

What kind of documents? For what purpose? Especially as the first thing your audience will read, you'll want to be more specific and direct here.

This and the citations would have been much better styled layout-wise by centering.

While your content throughout is very straight forward, well written, and easy to follow, I'm seeing little to no stylization of the content to help elevate your main talking points. Rather, the images are related but arbitrary, there is little organization beyond the headings, and you've not done much with Sutori's timeline style or color options to push your content beyond just the words on the screen. In other words, this reads more like a traditional paper, just online, and this assignment required much more than that.

You've got the ability with Sutori to actually show this evidence, rather than just telling the reader. Doing so would greatly strengthen your case, as concrete, visible evidence is some of the hardest to dispute.

Careful here - your audience may not have read this piece, and it's unclear if you're meaning this piece to speak directly to me or to an imagined audience, so it's a big assumption to make that they would know exactly what you were talking about here.

I really like how you have this laid out and give definitions/examples for these key terms. My only suggestion would be to perhaps bold the key words for your audience, to add just a little more visual flair.

I like this nice direct introduction, I know exactly what I'm getting into, right from the start.

Stylistically, I think this is my favorite section, since it really does a great job with visually linking both pieces you're comparing. Content/analysis wise though, we've got the same "Piece A does, Piece B does," when we would want that larger argument more integrated like the stylization is throughout.

The stylistic effect here is much smoother, I like the experience of reading back and forth here, though it's unclear whether I'm supposed to read the image example prior to the purple box, or read the purple box and then move to the example (which is what the content seems to suggest) so there's some tension with progression/organization on the style side here.

As for content, these two are still pretty separated in this case - watch out for that temptation in these kinds of pieces.

Your comparisons here work, but I'd like to see more integration both on the content and style side of things in this section. Especially with the amount of white space that is left under the image, this area appears uneven - this is further reinforced by the degree of separation between your two sections on Gallagher and Kontra. Remember, the goal of comparative analysis is integration and synthesis, rather than "Piece A does this, Piece B does that," as noted on the assignment sheet.

Nice and direct, I like it.

Give the shorthand title and number with a comma before the university

WRIT 123, Howard University (thos classifications matter most, course level and whether it's writ or eng)

Do you have a separate teaching website you can link here?

Can you hyperlink the article (and later the dis and chapter) here?

I know you're having fun with this but I'm not 100% sure how this phrasing will hit for most of the ancient old white people on search committees.

The icon displays on the right for me.

Are you a stakeholder if you don't have power?

a diverse student population? Array sounds strange

Take out of parentheticals.

Ahhh, is this meant to be your larger argument, then? That the videos show, through hierarchy, alignment, and repetition, that they have strong audience awareness?

If so, some organizational restructuring, so you get this up at the top and point back to it throughout (rather than just leaving your evidence floating and hoping your reader makes the same connections as you) would make the piece stronger overall.

Still love how you're incorporating evidence, but I'm still not seeing how/why the evidence matters for a larger argument about design/style.

Is there a reason this is bolded? Remember, we never want any of our style decisions to be arbitrary or accidental. If it's not immediately clear to your reader how/why your style choices accentuate the content, more meta-language (writing that explains your logic) is needed.

Nice pulling of concrete evidence here. I'd like to see a bit more unpacking as to why this matters for your larger argument, but that may be missing because I'm still not seeing a main claim to point back to?

I'm immediately wondering the intent of the shift from white to red boxes. It doesn't seem that the colors coordinate through the rest of the piece, or if there is intention behind it, I didn't quite pick up on it as a reader.

So, this does a really great job of telling me what you're going to do in the piece (great road mapping!) but doesn't actually tell me what you're going to argue using this comparison as evidence.

But you did technically just compare them, should I now ignore the entire above analysis?

Same here - either quotations or an image to really hone in that this is evidence (rather than just your word) would make you a bit more convincing.

Examples here would help.

I also like how the boxes are clearly color coded; I know what order I'm meant to read things.

Nice use of labels for included image here.

Is this intended as your thesis/main argument? The content here is certainly arguable, just keep in mind that theses are a combination of both content AND phrasing; a little revision would help make it very clear that this is the argument you'll be walking through below.

Missing integration of course materials to back up thinking, in addition to needing stronger use of evidence throughout.

How and why? Need more evidence here, not just your reaction. That reaction must be backed up with concrete evidence.

Only giving 1 example of this does not really get this point across; what if you pulled this as the only positive comment, for example, and all the rest were negative?

Much stronger reliance on evidence over reasoning here. Nice work.

It's a little unclear if I'm supposed to move to this text box prior to reading the two on the left, inbetween, or after. More intention and meta language to know how to navigate the layout would help.

This is a lot of hearsay - your opinion, with little to no evidence/analysis of the pieces themselves to back it up. Your reader will not just take your word for it, especially not when reading what is meant to be a comparative analysis, as analysis = argument.

How do you know? Where is your evidence?

Which matters because....?

A little quick to jump to a conclusion, no?

So, rather than an argument, this reads more like a summary/description of each of the pieces. What argument are you making about style/content, using these pieces as evidence?

Especially because I can see how the title are capitalized in the video images below, we'll want to do a little more proofreading to make sure there's consistency with our typed words.

A little stronger of a direct point back to your larger argument would have helped here, but in all a very nice analysis.

If this was done, the calendar would no longer be a single page (one of the larger goals for ease of reference). Would such a trade off have been worth it in this case?

I love this! This is such a great comparative image. Excellently done.

Nice pointing to evidence here.

Nice. You're doing the actual work of comparative analysis here - using evidence of similarities/differences to make a larger point. Good work.

Nice way to incorporate and clearly label the pieces you'll be working with here.

Nice way to set out your argument from the start, but a little more lead in as to how your argument is structured would help.

Ha, I'll have to send this as a screen cap to let her know we're fightin' :)

Same thing for this section; especially with its visual style, this reads like a "Piece A does this, Piece B does that," which, as noted on the assignment sheet, is not the purpose of a comparative analysis.

How, why, and based on what evidence? Rather than analysis, you've given me a summary of the document, followed by your thoughts on it, but no actual analysis that defends your assertions or a larger guiding claim about style/content as required by the assignment.

Okay - what is your larger argument that uses these comparisons as evidence? In other words, where's your thesis?

While you've got some good evidence here, without direction, the analysis falls flat. Rather than a comparative analysis, this reads more like a descriptive report of the two videos.

Much nicer use of evidence here not just reasoning, but it still falls a little flat without a unifying thesis to guide it/bring everything together.

What is the larger argument you're making about these pieces parts? As noted on the assignment sheet, comparative analysis is not just video a does this, video b does that, but rather a synthesis of both to back up a particular argument about style/content.

The organization here is a bit confusing; am I meant to read left right up down, or column a then column b?

Connecting these back to evidence/examples directly from the source would be more convincing here, otherwise you're hoping your reader just takes your word for it.

To what end? Or, what is the larger argument you will be making based on this comparison?

Maybe I'm completely missing it, but I'm not actually seeing you work with the two pieces for the comparative analysis itself. Is there something I'm not seeing or supposed to click on?

Ha, love the interactivity here. Your style choices so far are stellar.

This is a lot of information before we're even getting to the comparative analysis. Rather than keeping things completely separate, it may have been more convincing to establish these points, then look at how each worked (or did not work) in your chosen pieces, for a little more synthesis.

Okay, now that we've got a pattern established, I'm getting more of your reasoning for the varied text sizes here.

Ah, so meta, I love it!

I'm not entirely sure why this part has larger text. What kind of emphasis were you intending here?

Love the use of bolding for emphasis throughout.

I'm assuming this is the main claim/thesis you'll be defending throughout the piece? If so, the phrasing could be a little clearer that this is meant as the main argument, but I like the attention brought to it through the bolding and image inclusion.

Is this intended as your main argument? If so, it needs to be up at the top of your piece, with your evidence pointing back to it throughout. Otherwise, it's unclear what the above comparisons are meant to be pointing to/building toward as far as cohesive argument.

Says who? Why? For what benefit?

We've fallen into "Text A does this, Text B does that" so far. Without a guiding argument, this reads more like a descriptive report rather than a comparative analysis.

Without metacommentary to let the reader know, it's a little unclear if I'm meant to read column A first, then column B, or move between them with the timeline.

Syllabi

So, this is a good description of what each piece should do... but what's your actual argument you'll be making about style and content? In other words, where/what is your thesis?

I'd be surprised if anyone was using the syllabus and was not enrolled in the course?

Rather than just positioning this as your opinion, making it clearer that this was in fact your intended argument and pointing back to said argument throughout the piece would make you more convincing overall; in other words, we need a bit more synthesis throughout.

Careful - article titles go in "quotations" whereas book titles will get italicized.

Excellent use of evidence to back your analysis throughout both sections here.

Highly is a bit of a strange word choice here. Do you mean frequently? Effectively?

Do you mean in comparison to the other piece, or just that this is its weakest feature? It's a little unclear from the phrasing here.

Nice use of meta commentary and the actual pages as examples. Good work here.

Such a nice catch to point out, especially w/r to ethos development.

Careful here - this makes sense to me because I made the course, but might not to a reader "in the wild," and no meta commentary has been made so far to indicate that I am your intended audience (rather than a general one).

Is this your main argument, then? Which one was more effective at achieving its rhetorical goals?

Seems like we fell into summary/description here, rather than concluding by reiterating the argument.

How are these assertions meant to point back to your main claim? Needs more synthesis throughout.

Rather than arbitrary images, something showing this so you can point to a concrete example from the text would be more convincing.

Same thing here - where's your evidence? Readers tend to not believe word of mouth, especially not when reading argumentative pieces such as comparative analysis.