How, or in what ways? In other words, where's your evidence, rather than just hoping your reader takes your word for it?

Without meta commentary to direct me, it's a little unclear if I'm supposed to read column A before column B, or move between the two, muddying the understanding of content.

Is this the main argument you intend to make throughout your piece? It's a little unclear.

Based on what parts of your evidence in particular? This is why we want to flesh this out via synthesis, rather than the either/or approach above.

Without pointing each of these sections back to your main argument, the body of the piece reads a little like bullet points - Video 1 does this, Video 2 does that. A bit more synthesis will make for a stronger argument/analysis.

Nice incorporation of evidence here, and I love how you let me know visually that it applies to both sections by having it in the middle.

Nice style choices here as far as using your terms and pointing to evidence as the thumbnails are included below. I'd like to see a bit more pointing back to your main claim to help with cohesion, but the style choices so far are strong.

I love your color coding here and the way you've defined each particular genre. Nice work.

Same thing here - some meta commentary letting the reader know these are the two sources you're comparing will help.

A little more lead up to contextualize your claim may have helped here, but I'm glad to see a clear defensible claim right away.

Same thing here - without a guiding thesis or evidence pointing towards such a thesis, this is just a summary/report, not an analysis.

Due to the lack of color shifts and/or meta commentary, I am unsure as a reader if I am supposed to read the left column first, then right, or move from point to point along the timeline.

This reads more like a summary of the piece than an analysis. What are you arguing about this piece? Where is your evidence to back up such an argument?

Not a lot of visual rhetoric going on in your style choices, and the images are a bit arbitrary.

Also, where is your Works Cited?

Is this intended as your argument, then? The pieces' overall ability to combine style and content?

Is this meant to be your bio? I did not see it elsewhere.

And you know this based on what evidence from the text itself? This reads more like a report than an analysis, especially with the lack of evidence/thesis.

Especially with no incorporation of headings, font changes, color, etc, there is little to no stylistic meaning here. Basically, this reads like you copy/pasted from a standard essay, and then added a few images, which feel rather arbitrary and do not meet the assignment requirements.

Rather than an arbitrary image, including images to unpack as evidence would make your assessments here more convincing; otherwise, you're left hoping your reader takes your word for it.

In addition, this is very much a "one does this, one does that." Where is your synthesized argument that comparative analysis requires?

To argue what? Remember, as noted on the assignment sheet, comparative analysis is much more than "Text A does this, Text B does that"

Aha! See, this would be an arguable claim, but it's tucked away here as your take away, rather than being the guiding force of the project. This usually happens because writing is a process; we don't always know what we're arguing until we argue it. Revising is then where the argument needs to be made more explicit throughout the piece.

Your break down here is strong, and you point to concrete evidence well. The only missing link is how all these points synthesize into your larger argument, which I'm still not 100% clear on.

When including images, make sure to include a subtitle or something that either describes what the image is showing, or what you want the reader to get out of the image being included. Again, readers all interpret things differently, so unless you tell your reader why you're using an image, they might think it's serving a different purpose (or worse, no purpose) without such meta commentary.

Is the overall effect your main argument, then? Clarifying your thesis will help your analysis be more cohesive, since you'd want to point back to that main claim for each main point here.

Especially because we can use images here, including them so your reader can "see" what you mean would help here.

I really love the color coordination.

Careful here. Generally when we use quotes, we want to not only include them, but then unpack their meaning/relevance to the current project, rather than letting them stand on their own. Readers may interpret/understand the quote differently than you do, so making sure you explicitly point out why it matters for your argument in particular helps you be more convincing and avoid that risk.

I like how this tells me right from the beginning what you'll be doing in the piece, but I'm only getting an implied thesis/argument from this phrasing. What is your guiding claim?

Love how you went from the two sided to the single centered look for synthesis here. I can tell your style choices have been intentional.

Thank you for labeling the purpose of your images; this is super important for this kind of work!

Yes! Great way to connect visual example with prose here. I'm impressed so far.

Love your embedded links for terms.

These claims might be a little more convincing with either an example or a citation.

Love this style of metacommentary. Well done.

Excellent set up so far. Now let's see how you defend it!

I was hoping maybe you kept this color coordination throughout when talking about the two pieces - might have been a nice way to keep things organized stylistically with this interface.

Clear, defensible thesis right at the start. Excellent.

Very nice - I love knowing exactly what I need to be focused on right from the beginning.

That help your larger analysis/argument how, exactly?

Okay - you're starting to get into some argument territory here, just needs a little more synthesis throughout so it's clearer that you want all this points to connect to a larger claim.

And why the matter for your argument? Otherwise, even though your unpacking of evidence is great, without having something explicit to point said evidence toward, the piece doesn't actually do much in way of comparative analysis.

So, this is a great unpacking of evidence... but I'm not sure what this evidence is supposed to point me to? Or, where is your thesis (main argument) and how do you want this evidence to connect to it?

Love how you're using the interface to your advantage here.

Little weird that this one is on the right, since we usually read left to right, up to down.

Nice incorporation not only of a relevant image, but also a framing/context so the reader knows why the information/image are relevant.

So, I like that this road maps what you're about to talk about, but I'm not 100% sure what you'll be arguing. In other words, what is your actual thesis talking about these 3 things will help defend?

I appreciate this title.

So, this is the first place you're really starting to make an argument, but it's coming as your take away at the end, rather than a position being defended throughout (which is what comparative analysis asks of us).

How? Based on what evidence? Need clearer connection between this assessment/assertion and the evidence used above.

Including images or other forms of evidence would help drive home your points here, otherwise the reader just has your word to go on.

Same thing here - you're giving me descriptive writing, or, writing that explains what these sources are, rather than an analysis of said sources that point towards a specific argument.

This is a nice description of the syllabus and some of its style choices, but it's unclear what larger argument about style you're connecting it to, or how you're intended to compare it to your other source.

We're getting a bit long here for a single Sutori box; I know you tried to break things into paragraphs, but that doesn't exactly work for this kind of visual layout, so the content gets a little muddied.

Why, and based on what evidence?

Do or do not what, exactly?

In addition, this is a great road map of what you're going to do in the piece, but as a reader I'm not sure what you'll be arguing. That is, are you arguing one material is more or less effective than the other? Or, what is your thesis for the analysis/argument?

Nice meta commentary here to let me know exactly what I'm getting in to as a reader right from the start.

This also would have been an interesting area to make an argument about - can we understand each's effectiveness w/r to style given such a large gap? But as it stands, this is too much reporting, not enough comparative analysis.

Hey! This is getting into something more argumentative. More meta commentary to flesh this out/make the argument more explicit would help.

You'll want to point to specific points of evidence throughout to be more convincing here, otherwise you're hoping your reader just takes your word for it.

This is the first time that the left aligned set up has made stylistic sense to me - using it as a brief preface to what will be below. Otherwise, I'm not entirely convinced of the intermingling between style and content so far.

We've got lots of "on the one hand" and "however" moves here, which usually indicates we're doing a "Piece A does this, Piece B does that" report, rather than a synthesized analysis. Rather than just describing both pieces, the goal here was to use the pieces as evidence through comparative analysis to defend a larger claim about style/content.

How do you know this? I'm also still not super convinced at the left alignment boxes - leaves a lot of white space, that feels arbitrary, to the right.

I almost missed this bit, which made it very confusing when I went down to the next section. Centering and/or having this in its own box would help.

In addition, this tells me what you're going to do below, but not what you're arguing - what's your thesis?

I wonder if this might look more visually pleasing centered, rather than left justified?

Is this what you wanted to be arguing throughout your piece, then? Restructuring so that this is up in your introduction, and gets pointed back to throughout the rest of the piece would make things read more like an analysis rather than a descriptive report.

If one side is meant to be one video, and the other the other video, I wonder if we really need to label each side. A section letting the reader know that you'll be discussing one piece on the left and the other on the right might have been a stronger stylistic choice.

This section here is a better means of displaying evidence, but it's unclear what this evidence is proving without a guiding thesis statement.

Rather than a comparative analysis, this reads more like a report describing the various parts of these two videos. What is your guiding argument about style/content? Where is your evidence from these (rather than just saying one does this, the other does that) that backs such an argument?

Missed bolding it here it looks like?

These are still statements/observations about the videos rather than a defensible claim about their style/content. Remember, as noted on the assignment sheet, comparative analysis is more than just "Piece A does this, Piece B does that" - the goal is a synthesized argument using the comparisons as evidence to back your thinking.

Without some kind of descriptors with these videos, it's unclear that they are the source material you'll be discussing. More meta commentary would help make this clearer.

1) This is an incomplete sentence

2) This explains what your piece is about, but does not tell me what you will be arguing/defending in your analysis. In other words, where is your thesis?

Is this your argument, then? That both pieces were effective? I'm still not sure what you're intending as your main claim that guides the comparative analysis.

Webtexts are not the same thing as videos, so the comparison here might not be relevant/you would need to note this and argue that the similarities are still relevant.

I'm a little unsure how you intend this to connect to your analysis - more explicit metacommentary would help.

How does this actually do this? That is, you're hoping your reader takes your word for it that this is what's happening, rather than unpacking your evidence to convince them that your understanding is a correct interpretation of meaning here.

How? Need more evidence throughout.

According to whom?

Could, or does? Based on what evidence? A million views can mean a lot of things.

This reads more like a road map, or a statement about what your piece will do, rather than a defensible claim. What is your larger argument that this comparative analysis seeks to defend?

To what end? Or, what is your main argument/thesis?

I audibly chuckled :)

Excellent final take away. Great job all around Luke!

Great way to smoothly integrate your sources.

You might have to cite this for me to believe the connection.

Two actually - one for Slack, one for Zoom.

Excellent work unpacking the use as it connects with style here.

I love the use of bold not only for emphasis, but to connect these ideas directly back to your framework. I continue to be impressed.

Nice pointing to evidence here.

This set up to frame your understanding of the analysis works very well.

Yes! Always contextualize your images so it's clear why they're relevant to the rest of your piece. I am impressed so far.

Influence?

A different color for this box, to really mark that it's a point of difference ("however") might have been a more effective stylistic choice here.

Excellent metacommentary.

Excellent way to provide a link and cite the source material.

Nice use of subheading to immediately let me know what your piece is about to do.

Yep! This is a part of the process here - there will always be constraints/limitations to navigate with a given interface.

A little unclear that this is your Works Cited; make sure you label things.

I like your use of color, but I will say the images seem a bit arbitrary. I also wonder if you could have used the way Sutori's layout "splits" your commentary to make the comparisons a little more clear visually (one on one side, the other on the other side, and the conjoined parts in the center, perhaps?)

Same thing here - rather than just saying this is how the pieces are, SHOW your reader. Use that concrete evidence whenever you can!

We've jumped to Yancey a bit suddenly here - though I do like the color change to help note this stylistically.

Especially with such commentary and Sutori's ability to let you include images, using them as evidence would greatly increase the strength of your analysis here. Evidence > reason, especially with analysis/argument.

This would be more convincing with screen shots as examples.

Nice clear and defensible claim here, but as a reader I'm kind of looking for how the article will be incorporated/compared, especially since it's mentioned above in the title.

This is more of a statement than an argument. What defensible argument are you making about these texts? Remember, comparative analysis is NOT just "Piece A does this, piece B does that," but a synthesized argument that uses the similarities/differences of the pieces to build a cohesive analytical position.

Why guess when you can research and know for sure?

According to whom? Need sources to authorize these kinds of claims.

How does this connect to your larger point about the piece? So far this reads a little more like a bullet point report, rather than a synthesized analysis.

Seems strange to have an example from one of the articles, but not the other. I'm also not quite sure how the style choices on Sutori are meant to reinforce your points here; that is, this reads more like a top to bottom essay that got pasted in a little arbitrarily (the opposite of what we want our style choices to be).

So, what is the main argument that guides your piece, then?

I like how this piece pops, but because of how the title is set up, I was expecting one piece to be discussed on the left, and the other on the right, so there's some confusion in your visual style choices here that muddy the content.

Are these the two articles you'll be comparing? I only know what they are because we're in the same class; for a more successful comparative analysis, more context w/r to what you're comparing is necessary before jumping in to what read more like body paragraphs than any kind of introduction.

This feels like a strange ethos move - why would you tell your audience that what you're about to write about might not be what you're most experienced with?

Relevance here is a big thing too - this is a good ethos (rather than pathos) building area, so I'm wondering why some information is included that doesn't seem like it will be relevant to the contents below.

Rather than this, having something saying who you are/that you're a student might be a better ethos move at the end. You don't want to get to the end here and undermine yourself, but you can let people know you're not an expert just by saying you are currently completing your undergraduate degree.

Bold here too; especially when we point directly to the audience, the bold catches attention more than the italics (which kind of just add a voice shift internally, rather than big emphasis).

I would remove emphasis here; the statement stands well enough on its own.

Yes, YOU have a place in The Conversation

Bold for extra emphasis here too, rather than italics

Maybe number these headings out since you said you'd break it down above?

Colon rather than a period here

If you can get a source to link for this statement, it will have more ethos

bold for extra emphasis, rather than italics here

get something in here to point to especially/specifically NYT journalists, since you're talking directly to them

committed to what, exactly? Be specific here to really drive home your point.

Shift to active voice; "we (or, we as journalists) must strive"

cut the ly

This note did not overlay correctly on my screen; the left image covered the footnote.

cut this; your ending here with the italicized point for emphasis loses its power with a clause following after

Word choice, frequently might be a better fit for tone here.

Yesss. This is a great, strong ending to this section.

cut this

Especially because you move at the end of the paragraph to the explicit point of Instagram as previously more performative, an extra sentence here noting that performativity explicitly will help tie everything in this paragraph together.

or, since you've started with "not"

A little more hedging might be in order here, since speaking this definitively about what something "was" or "wasn't" can immediately get people defensive. "Appeared a simple" for example, lets you get out of this risk.

A bold here might be a better visual cue than italics, especially since you've got the "you" up there.

I'm not entirely following what you mean by this opening. What people? What level of damage? What types of advocacy? As an immediate subtitle, we might want something a little more direct, though I do like the "who will tell them" ending.