None of this serves as an argument that 2.99/mo is a good price point

citation needed.

Everything in this paragraph are things you've just now suggested the hero needs and, conveniently, your proposed hero has them. But nothing I've read so far has convinced me that this is the case.

Yes, you've done that. But what you needed to do was give us a small picture of the crisis that the industry is facing and show us how none of the current players can resolve that crisis. That would set you up to talk about your hero (now that we'd know what the job requirements are).

This is the first time you bring Vessel up since the introduction. They are the hero of this story, but featured pretty late in the plot.

Seems like its only $114. And why choose this show as the example?

why not? It seems that you're picking your definition of heroic based on the qualities of the company you've chosen as the hero, and nobody else qualifies.

I would have thought that a hero would be needed precisely for this purpose. The problem here is that you have not given us a good sense of WHY a hero is needed. Without knowing what a hero has to save the industry from, it is hard to agree with the argument that one is needed, or with the details of what one should look like.

I like that you keep incorporating movie/superhero references, but make sure it is appropriate. This sentence adds little to the value or the narrative of the essay.

citation

link/citation

link

link

This part of the argument is too simplistic. All companies are working to increase shareholder value. The reason Amazon could be bad for the publishing industry don't have to do with the company's drive for growth, nor with Bezos' ambition.

similarly, you don't want to be too flippant.

be careful with your choice of words/phrases. It is OK to be playful and fun with your metaphors, but you don't want to be too blasé about the topic or the reader wont take you seriously.

you could cut this sentence, or work it better into the text. It feels injected into this paragraph.

link

citation

This is the closets you've come to telling us what a hero needs to do/be, but even here it is somewhat vague.

you haven't told us what "this model" is

this sentence is unclear.

I like first paragraph as an opening, but it does not give us much in way of specifics. It is not clear what the hero needs to protect the publishing industry from.

This is a natural place for a link to a superhero that embodies these qualities. Or at least to your favourite superhero.

a protector from what?

You have the best openings.

This is a key fact, which goes with your point earlier about how this is an important market segment. This should appear with that earlier point, and not in a concluding thought.

citing a classmate!

abrupt transition.

You started this paragraph talking about the growing market of tables, but are finishing it talking about enhanced ebooks.

The easy solution would be to split this paragraph in two, but when doing that, make sure you tie off loose ends and transition between them gracefully.

A little too much over-reliance on Shatzkin and on long (multi-sentence) quotes. Also, you have a quote within a quote here (change inner quotes to single).

This finally ties back to your opening paragraph, but we're a long way off from that paragraph now.

By this point in the essay, I think your intended message is becoming diluted. I am getting a lot of information on Epic! and Scholastic, but I am unsure of what the overall point you are using them to illustrate is.

are you suggesting that all content industries could be easily combined into one?

what's the link between this and the previous paragraph?

why smartly? why is it better than monthly?

all good ideas. But Shatzkin's or yours?

after giving us a long quote in full, you are not summarizing what we just read. Both are definitely not necessary.

do we really need that entire quote to understand that Shatzkin thinks it is a good idea? What is your essay offering that is different from his argument?

new idea -> new paragraph

careful with the (over)use of rhetorical questions.

citation needed

citation needed.

digital space at both beginning and end of this sentence.

other than "of children's publishers" the rest of this sentence seems unconnected to what came before it.

Is this the logical question from the preceding? Isn't the logical question how should publishers take advantage of this demographic?

it'd be stronger to say why publishers have speculated about juvenile books. You could say that while table use is stagnating in the population in general (your recent studies from the next section), the market among young people that continues to grow drawing attention to juvenile books.

citations?

sentence fragment.

How about simply the following, instead of the colon:

He goes on to argue that digital readers expect that even ....

because of the false sense of security you just mentioned. Its dangerous to ask rhetorical questions in an essay, do so with care.

good insight.

yes! your point of view. This is the first time in the essay we're hearing your voice.

You're assuming too much familiarity with the ins and outs of FXL for the reader to follow this paragraph. Even someone with a general understanding of FXL would be a little perplexed by some of this.

again, not clear how this is a problem of FXL. Is hyphenation not supported natively so people implement it by inserting the line break tag in between each word? This should be explained more clearly.

but HTML is not intended to be human readable in this way. Why this is a problem for FXL specifically is not clear here.

You're getting at some important distinctions, but they should be addressed explicitly not implicitly. The key here, from what I understand of what you're saying, is that content creators are having to cater to each platform individually because current FXL implementations do not work across readers.

This section presents an unclear version of what FXLs are, how they are intended, or used/marketed.

This is counter to what I understand FLX to be, which is supposed to give the publisher more control over layout than normal EPUB. From IDPF purpose and overview of FLX:

"But this principle doesn’t work for all types of documents. Sometimes content and design are so intertwined they cannot be separated. Any change in appearance risks changing the meaning, or losing all meaning. Fixed-layout documents give content creators greater control over presentation, when a reflowable EPUB is not suitable for the content."

You have good sources and good facts in the opening, but it falls short of properly setting up the essay. You start out with a clear quote, but then the rest of the supporting evidence muddles the issue, and it is unclear to me know what the essay will ultimately be about (beyond its about FXL, which has a lot of problems).

a little vague.

This is a good quote that without going into any of the details highlights the gravity that some see in the situation (which I think was your intent with all the preceding quotes, right?).

You've given us a lot of reasons why people are against it, but by now I think the reader is likely to be confused. Its too many arguments too soon.

you already used this list at the beginning of this paragraph. feels redundant here.

Presenting expert opinion is not a substitute for presenting your own. You should also be careful to put together a good narrative so that these opinions come in context and add value. I don't want to be told I should care about this problem just because people in the industry are talking about it. Explain it so I understand the reasons, then cite these sources to show the kinds of thinking that have gone into it.

This is a lot of arguments presented to us before we fully understand what the format or what the overall controversy is.

tell us what ReadBeyond is. Although, more importantly, tell us why we should care what he thinks. Or, better yet, you tell us what we should think and just cite him to give more weight to your words.

Good. clearly stated thesis.

This is counter to your earlier arguments against contextualizing books. If context is one of the ways to get to a new system that ensures discovery and relevance, then context is not a hinderance, right?

another good insight.

Good insight.

Important that you included this word here. I think this is as important (or more important) part of the type of context that O'Leary refers to.

fair enough.

Be careful when you introduce quotes from others in your text. There's been a few instances so far where the quote seemingly comes out of nowhere. Try to ease us into them by working the quote into a sentence of your own that flows from the text.

I think its clear that there is a risk of it becoming a hinderance, but not sure you've made a compelling case that is definitely is, or even that it is in a large number of cases.

a little too much reliance on a single source for the counterargument thus far.

not sure what you mean by fact and theory

why? Just because it is there, it does not mean that readers wouldn't allow that interconnectivity couldn't be turned off.

I thought you were citing yourself here :). You need to include year of publication in these citations. (Self, 2014)

traditionally?

Good. This is the right place to pivot to your argument.

what is the evidence that is is clear?

careful with your language here. HTML is not a program.

context inherent? Or api inherent? unclear.

I'm not convinced this is the case and the onus is on you to present the evidence that it is.

These are strong words.

be careful about making claims about a lot of people thinking one thing without having substantiation. Unless Abel talks about a many people, you should present the point of view as Abel's and O'Leary's and not that of a large segment of the publishing industry.

put the (O'Leary) at the end of the sentence and add year.

Does O'Leary suggest there are many others who agree with him?

vague. Unclear what it means for a book to be contextualized and remain an isolated vessel.

whose belief?

again. The relationship between context and interconnectivity is not clear yet.

vague.

perhaps paragraph break, or simply move next few sentences later on in the essay.

the notion of context still remains quite vague here.

This is a strong thesis, one that will require substantiation throughout the essay.

who are the many? citations needed.

how do you mean isolation here?

I think the use of context here is unclear. It is building on some of the readings from the course, but to an outside reader it would be confusing.

citation here.

youtube user? There is a person behind that account who would be the right person to cite. This is yet another definition of transmedia.

You seem to be trying to engage with a scholarly literature about transmedia and how we construct meaning, but I don't see how this helps the argument that publishers should change their practices.

what does the author mean by complex textures? How does it relate here?

again. no clear narrative here.

again. No lead in to this section. How did we get to needing examples?

not clear what do you mean by platforms as literature?

you already used this paragraph and now, for the second time, without proper sourcing.

evidence of this?

all of these paragraphs are disconnected from one another. I'm having a hard time following the thread.

This paragraph paraphrases from the following link without proper sourcing:

http://theliteraryplatform.com/2010/06/engaging-with-story/

how does this relate to fandoms now?

this is yet another definition of transmedia. I thought the paper had already provided one.

Where's the lead-in to this section? Why are we talking about fandom now? We've jumped to a whole new topic, and there is no clear relationship to the thesis set out at the outset. How does it relate to the fixed definition of transmedia?

This paragraph is disconnected from what preceded it.

they are (to go with "ideas")

which researchers? Citation needed.

You seem to be speaking in response to somebody's fixed notion of transmedia, but you never presented us evidence that there are those with such a rigid notion.

which critics? citation needed.

better. This is explaining what you mean a little.

but it seems to me that transmedia is a way of thinking about those possibilities. Its unclear to me what a shifting definition looks like? How have publishers been rigid in thinking about transmedia?

You should spend some more time on explaining the potential of transmedia and/or with some examples of its success. What are the limitations of transmedia as it has been conceived thus far?

convoluted sentence.

whereby twice in this sentence.

no commas.

had?

open

Why for the purposes of this paper? Is there another definition you're not telling us about? Do others refer to it differently?

I thought it was around since the 1920s (so not so new?)

a definition or some explanation of what it is is needed before the example, otherwise it is unclear what aspect of the Matrix is the transmedia.

Be careful with these 1-sentence paragraphs. They make the reading stilted.

It is not sufficiently clear yet what the problem is, or why this opportunity exists.

You haven't set us up to think there is a hopeless situation yet.

again. citation with at least one example of who you mean

who do you mean here? A citation to some examples would be useful.

This quote is not incorporated into the narrative of the paragraph. While relevant information is presented, it sticks out.

Are you suggesting the power Amazon has over publishers is because of the readership data? I think this is (and will continue to be) about sales. There is a risk that as publishers start relying on data for more of their decisions, that they will be in a weaker position with Amazon, as they will be desperate to get their hands on Amazon's data to complete their data picture (without it, they will continue to be basing themselves on only 50% of all sales).

is there any other kind of value of the data?

Not sure if or how this could ever be the case. The data of the sales through Amazon and the readership that happens inside the Kindle would always still be controlled by Amazon. How could it be otherwise?

yes.

You haven't given much in way of examples of what kinds of things you think publishers could do, and doing so is at the heart of your argument.

as long as they are read on Internet-enabled devices and assuming the ebook readers (i.e., those controlled by Amazon and Apple) wouldn't block such attempts.

good quote.

I'm glad to see you're reaching this conclusion here, but everything earlier in the essay was pointing to the proposition that publishers should do this themselves.

I thought you were against the caution with the earlier comments that they are moving too slowly. This seems contradictory.

The focus on partnerships is what I've been getting at earlier. However, this section does not do justice to the role of partnerships and the necessary considerations that publishers need to make.

Good. This comparison was begging to be made.

I don't think the publishers moving more quickly would have stopped Amazon. If anything, it would have inspired them to move more quickly so as to to diminish the value of the data the publishers were getting from the other subscription services.

The Kobo readers are buyers though. Separate out the two.

I wouldn't really characterize it as an innovation.

this flows nicely from the previous section

Still, good speculation.

is it generosity? Like you say above, this is something they see as a business advantage. But why don't other data collectors see it this way?

good thing to point out.

Any insights or speculation as to why? Understanding the relationship between those collecting the data and the publishers seems crucial to me.

This is the key problem, right?

You're rehashing the same point in the first half of the essay: publishers don't have access to data.

I feel as though you'd already made this point with the previous paragraph.

convoluted sentence.

I agree with the first part of this sentence, but not with the latter. See previous comment.

I don't think partnerships in and of themselves are the problem. It is partnerships that do not give them access to the underlying data that are more of a problem. Letting tech companies do what they do best seems smart, as long as they don't shut the publishers out of the underlying data.

?

new paragraph?

there has been?

facts?

or?

yaaawwn.

Just kidding! Much better opening.

new paragraph.

We do?

and they are not?

who is this a quote from?

Again, I think a little reorganizing how you present your argument would make a more compelling read. Starting with this paragraph and then following it up with the facts about the size of the smartphone market and its potential in both the develop and developing world makes more sense to me than reading about the size of the market and then having this argument that the smartphone is a logical place to put books.

perhaps "there are those who believe that"?

this is surprising.

Is the untapped market primarily in the developing world? It becomes a little confusing in this paragraph to hear about the phone situation in developing countries while simultaneously hearing about the Worldreader organization. The paragraph feels unfocused.

This comes a little out of nowhere. This paragraph so far reads: fact. fact. fact. statement about organization that I am not sure why I am interested in.

again, citation needed.

citation needed.

There is an important implication that you only allude to here, which is that thinking about phones causes a shift in how people think about digital books. I realize you state this, but in my reading, the meaning (or at least the larger implications) is partially lost as written.

For example, putting this second first and the other second would draw us in to the problem, while the first sentence would then serve to clarify that it is indeed a problem.

Try an opening that draws us in on the problem, instead of a fact. And this fact needs a citation to substantiate.

attempt to address these fundamental...

This is debatable. A citation is needed here to justify. Its easy to be exposed to books online. Whether people are as likely to buy those books is a different story.

The topic of the essay comes across clearly in this essay, although the paragraph is a somewhat redundant. I'm a little unsure if the essay now hopes to argue about the importance of discoverability (as stated in the first sentence) or something else.

clear upfront thesis.

If its widely debated, you should be able to point at some of the debates with citations.

how are being visible and being found different? If they are different, isn't it the other way around? Something needs to be visible in order for someone to find it?

these should be linked.

this points to a good critique of the work, but it doesn't come out and say it explicitly. It seems to me that you are suggesting that the essay overlooks device maker's interest in DRMs. If so, this is a large oversight, and one that could have again become the focus of the essay.

same comment as above.

Do you think this is a flaw in the essay? Or is this just a suggestion for another direction in which to go? You mostly want to focus on the former in a review.

weak paragraph. It ceases to be commentary and goes to the realm of what you liked without stating why it was good.

not a sentence.

another good observation.

instead of framing this in terms of what you appreciate, it would be better to frame it in terms of the essay tackling an often ignored perspective, or in terms of the forward thinking nature of the piece.

so different how? Giving the reader (and author) a better sense of what differences you mean would strengthen your review. Is it just the price points?

if you make a claim like this, you have to do at least a little research to see if it is true, and to offer some stats yourself as part of the review.

This is a good observation that could easily have become the focus of the review.

this seems contrary to the claims that the essay could have used more detail.

This is a valid critique, and combined with your earlier point above, it would have made for a stronger review if you'd tackled it as a core flaw in the piece and used this as an example.

don't worry about whether you agree or not. Just if the author made a strong case for it, and whether you found it convincing.

I'm not sure I understand your critique here. If changing it alters part of the argument made, then isn't it a good idea not to change it? What was lacking in the way it was presented? If it failed to explain the concept, you should point out how, and then offer this as a way to improve it.