Title doesn’t take a stand
The positives arguments were broken down by the use of absolutes.
Absolutes were not backed up by research.
Needed to see more of the proof for some of the arguments that were being made. A research argument without sources is a real problem
Arguments need a blend of stats and narrative
Embedded definitions would have been helpful.
Spell checking required
Funny wording
Problem sentences (2nd sentence of 2nd paragraph) fragment.
Seems like a bright student who needs to know where to begin setting up the argument. Seems like student needed more time (commitment) to reviewing and revising the article.
Strong voice and strong point of view — wanted to take the student voice even further to embrace the absolutes (more of a student rant genre)
So many points of argument that it is hard for the reader to link it all together. Need to select and refine ideas.
Writer seems not to fully understand the complexity of the problems he/she is dealing with. The debate seems to be bigger than the author is aware.
Didn’t seem to put enough effort into presenting the ideas. Clearly this undercut the content.
Ideas and voice need to be supported by craft.
Ending is too grandiose in terms of its vision of the future (with pot). Passion tips to weakness at that moment.
Go back to cleaning up structure without destroying the voice.
They need to learn to recognize that the craft means that this in not just about them and their voice.

Writer has passion. Has strong ideas and strong opinions.
Really like the structure. Clearly an argumentative paper that is well supported.
Persuasive techniques were quite strong, will support for the position that he or she was taking. First sentence of second paragraph of second page was well written.
There was a sense of voice. Could hear it spoken aloud. (Opening sentence).
The way they used quotation marks to indicate that they realize the language they are using is being carefully used.
Lead into the thesis was nice and balanced.
Liked the student’s use of positive and negative rhetoric. Made reader question own opinions followed up with positive ideas to support opinion.
Recognize the breadth of their audience (young people and Canadians in general)
Interesting rationale to support argument (though uneven).

The image and the text didn’t always work together, creating confusion for the reader.
Wanted more images for the scientific sections of the paper because these were harder to visualize.
Got bored. First section personality came through, second section this was missing.
Transition words used throughout the opening section didn’t always feel like they fit what the author was trying to accomplish (too many furthermores)
Bottom half of the first paragraph sentence structures required greater variety.
Creative section seemed to have been abandoned later in the paper (a scientific sandwich with two slices of creative)
More visual imagery throughout (especially because of how it started), consistency throughout.
Clearer sense of what genre the text is (newspaper article, research paper, report to parks Canada)
A little redundant at times. Information was interesting but circled around it too much.
Transitional statements in the opening section but that variety wasn’t present in the later sections.
Self-disclosure sentences bother one reader. If the genre is clearer this issue might not be a problem.
What is the purpose of the document?

Clear image of the canyon.
Definitions were embedded in the text.
Mix of creative word choices with a more scientific text.
Made something as complex as erosion understandable and interesting.
hybridization of styles
Clear indication of shift in style (through the use of headings and organization)
Seemed well researched. Lots of interesting facts. Well referenced.
The first heading grounded the reader in what the writer was doing.
Started with the poetic form to draw the reader in and then moved to the more scientific form.
Few errors. Well written.
Sentences were short and clear.
Good example of different forms of expository grammar.
multimedia text — supported the visual image the text was creating. Process of description moved from the text to the image so that the reader could construct a visual before looking at the photo.