i think you mean it provides them a place to voice their issues

'in the form of a forum' might make more sense

'could' might be more appropriate since the site is still there and still has users

kind of makes the sentence confusing

avoid the words 'you' and 'your'.. remember the point of view writing tip that we were supposed to read a few weeks ago!

here is the link: http://usfcomposition.wikispaces.com/Writing+Tip+1

if there supposed to be a connecting word here?

confusing.. what is 'it'?

should be plural

'with knowing' should be replaced with a word like 'about'

you don't need to say actually twice

doesn't make sense

you should add something like 'with the idea' between these two words

kind of confusing.. might make more sense to say 'relates the schoolwork to basketball' or 'incorporates their schoolwork and basketball'

sentence is not very clear

'shows' might make more sense than 'has'

confusing

refer back to what I said about avoiding you and your earlier.. you use them a lot in these sentences

'use' could sound better

not very clear

POV- avoid 'you'

'in search of help' might make more sense

you don't need to say both 'in the future' and 'as the years progress'.. they kind of mean the same thing

change of tense

this is not needed and makes your sentence sound very repetitive

no space needed

word choice makes this sound confusing

what does this mean?

change of tense

repetitive.. you just used this sentence

You use some very good details and have some good ideas for improving this webpage.

You had some confusing sentences but I'm sure if you fixed those your paper would be much more clear and easy to read.

i think it would flow better if you took these words out and just started with 'throughout' as a new sentence

comma should be before McCain not after

Why do you call it underlying? I feel like that is kind of the whole point of his speech.

doesn't need to be capitalized

This sentence is confusing.. it might be cleaer to say 'With that said he goes on to explain the mounting cost of our presnence in Iraq, not just in dollars, but in the amount of lives that have been lost since the start of this war.'

doesn't make sense

I think it would flow better if you took these words out and started another sentence with 'He'

should be plural

might make more sense saying 'our continuing without an'

doesn't make sense

earlier you said he didn't directly discuss an ethical issues

why is this here?

i don't think you need the word 'and' here

it would flow better if 'such' started a new sentence

you changed tense from 'uses' to 'made'

should be 'officials who also'

i think it should be 'whom are republicans'

this makes the sentence a little wordy and is not needed since you already said they 'share his view of a misguided war'. it is kind of repeating yourself

doesn't make sense

this sentence contradicts the rest of the paragraph

might make more sense to say 'is what would result'

no end to this quotation

you kind of discuss new thoughts here.. you might want to add another paragraph after it that ties into your main idea more and closes the paper

You used lots of quotes throughout your paper but never cited where they came from.

You had very good details and awesome word choice! You also used the correct point of view throughout the paper and did a good job staying on topic.

Your opening is good but i'm not sure if the last paragraph is meant to be a closing since it discusses new topics. You might want to add another paragraph or make that one relate more to the rest of the paper.

this part of the sentence doesn't make sense

this should just be 'and'

what kind of rhetoric?

This is not needed you already said 'in Obama's speech' at the beginning of this sentence.

correctly spelled 'terrorists'

these words make the sentence confusing

i think it would be more clear if you just said 'that he'

missing quotation mark here

i think it would be more clear to say 'this hinders his arguement because'

this is kind of confusing.. it might be better to say 'obama also used logos throughout his argument in statements like'

Your last paragraph introduces new topics and issues that you had not previously discussed. I can't tell if it is supposed to be your closing or not because if so it doesn't really support the rest of the paper.

you used a lot of quotations but never cited where they came from

you did a good job using the correct point of view and you used a lot of good details

The organization of your paper was very good. It helped your ideas be easily understood and also helped the flow of the paper.

you need a connecting word such as 'and' between 'contradict himself' and 'constantly kept'

You didn't really have an opening or closing paragraph. I couldn't really tell if you even used 2 written messages and 2 visual or just one of each.

You used some quotes throughout your essay but didn't ever cite where they came from.

You also did not discuss the structure of their messages, their intended audiences or how comfortable they are in either form of communication (written of oral).

The second paragraph is a good analyzation of their rhetorical strategies. It is also good that you stated what their messages focused on because since you didn't give a works cited page and used different media than the suggested ones I wasn't really aware of what your chosen messages were about.

You did a good job with your point of view. You didn't address the reader as 'you'.

Convention- Incorrect spelling

Convention- wrongly capitalized

Convention- order would make more sense here

Convention- sentense doesn't make sense

Convention-sentence doesn't make sense

Convention- sentence doesn't make sense

Convention- and/or

Convention- commas are needed around "although not acceptable in today's society"

Convention- doesn't make sense

Convention- should just be Levin

Convention- should be "and of making a choice"

Convention- Levin

Convention-Levin

Convention- Levin

Convention- Levin

Convention- sentence doesn't make sense

Convention- This is wrong. The mother said she would want to administer the torture not just watch.

Convention- Levin

Convention- Levin

Convention- doens't make sense

Convention- parts of sentence don't make sense, wrong tense used for reason

Convention- commas needed around "when needed", need to specify who has no knowledge

Convention- sentence changes tense

Convention- should be "and is considered Lincoln's"

Convention- sentence doesn't make sense

Convention- doesn't make sense

Convention- This is wrong. Foner is just citing "sentiments that are likely to be with us for some time to come." The article is actually about how he thinks "the most patriotic act of all is the unyielding defense of civil liberties."

Convention- commas are also needed around the quote

Convention- doesn't make sense

Convention- the authors have a similar style of writing not the magazine

Convention- Levin

Convention- This is wrong. As I stated earlier Foner completely disagrees with these actions and McCullagh never even says that he agress with the actions taken by our government.

Convention- doesn't make sense

Organization- The closing doesn't really relate to the rest of the paper. Ethics is only mentioned one time before this.

Organization- There is no opening to the paper. You go right into discussing your first article instead of introducing your main idea.

Convention- Ursula

Convention- Levin

Convention- Levin

Assignment Parameters- The paper does not really reflect the idea that was assigned. There is only one reference to rhetorical basis and style (pathos, logos, or ethos). You didn't always state whether the author was for or against torture. You also didn't really mention anything about the credentials or authority of any authors or sources so there was nothing about how this affects the success of the message. You also did not research any additional articles on torture so there was obviously no discussion about their specific claims or how they use situation and fact.

Organization- There are a lot of good details used in the paragraphs about LeGuin's story but many of the things talked about do not relate to the topic. The first two paragraphs are good discussion on the story but don't relate to the subject of torture and there is no mention about how this author uses rhetorical strategies.

You use a lot of good details and quotes throughout the paper but the fact that you have incorrect references and have the whole idea of Foner's article wrong might make your paper look unreliable.

The paper doesn't tie together very well. For one of the authors you talked about rhetoric, for one you talked about different aspects of the plot and for some you gave too much review of the information in the article and not enough about the message they were trying to portray and the writing style they used to get it across to the readers.

The paragraphs about Levin are good. You use details that help develop your ideas and also state what kind of rhetoric style he uses to persuade his readers.

The paragraphs about McCullagh have too much review and not enough of your ideas on his writing style, message or credentials.

The paragraph about Foner's article is really confusing to me. Not only are your references not accurate with his article but I don't understand that sentence about how he claims "his views on terrorism by bringing people right of speech"?

Your bibliography page is also supposed to be in MLA format, not just the link to the website.