Organization very good (6)
I personally find the subsections a bit distracting, although I see your intentions. Each of these sections don''t seem long enough to warrant being separated. I would consider condensing them without the subtitles, just for unity''s sake.

Oh, and also, you have a type after your picture of a homeless guy. It says "fist" when you meant "first." Just thought you should know.

Flow very good (6)
It all flows quite well, with the only exception being the quotes. The Dickens quote at the beginning is quoted a bit longer than necessary, in my opinion, and the Cheshire Cat/Alice quote could be split off into a block quote (with your interjected commentary moved elsewhere.)

And in the paragraph immediately preceding The Cheshire Cat section, you say "had nowhere to go or no one to turn to," you should consider changing it to "had nowhere to go nor anyone to turn to." It, um, flows a lot better that way, in my opinion.

Review of mhv89
Focus Excellent (7)
You have a well developed thesis that is strongly supported by both your writing and the novel. The focus stays strong throughout the text and does not waiver.

Organization Excellent (7)
You set out a structure from the beginning and follow through with it, neatly presenting your paper point by point. Your conclusion brings it all together, packaging it all nicely and with great prowess.

Flow Average (4)
You do not use transitional phrases, which is awesome, especially in light of your smooth transitions nonetheless. However, the pictures are never referenced in the text, and are seemingly random, having nothing immediately obvious to do with the text. In the introduction paragraph, the sentence "I am not trying..." can be cut down to "Though the book appears to not have any theme beyond (blah blah blah), Jude the Obscure also criticizes an entire system (blah blah blah). It takes away the passive voice and makes a more formal, mature piece of work.

Additionally, in the second paragraph, you say "he substitutes as he does," which is unnecessarily wordy and makes little sense. I''m not sure if this was an editing error or not, but the words "as he does" should probably be cut entirely. You also have a typo soon after where you say "spear" instead of "sphere." After that you have an ellipsis (...) that not only has three periods, but also should be cut altogether, as it is a bit informal.

In the next paragraph, you say "never thought about girls in that kind of way," which should be cleaned up to "in a sexual manner" just for clarification and maturity''s sake.

It''s still a very strong paper, and with these little things cleaned up, it will make a very convincing piece of literary criticism.

Reviwe of postalservice:
Focus Excellent (7)
You set out a thesis and stick to it. You explain exactly enough to get the point across without adding a lot of crap--good job, definitely focused.

Organization Excellent (7)
Again, very good work. It is clearly organized, starting with the first half of your thesis and ending with the second. There are no obvious problems with the organization itself, and I think your framework should be left unaltered.

Flow Average (4)
You do an exceptional job integrating your pictures into your text, but I think it could be enhanced without the personal asides, such as "This is how I imagine Jude..." etc. Instead, say, "This is an example of someone who is alone, possessionless and waiting to die, much like Jude."

In the second paragraph, you say "too young to view it as the handicap that is it." This could be cleaned up a lot and taken out of passive voice by simply saying "view it as a handicap," or maybe "as a societal handicap."

You also have three instances of parenthetical statements, all of which should either be taken out or integrated as a part of the text. Don''t use parenthesis as an excuse to slip in your own personal feelings--be proud of what you have to say, and interject your personal feelings with pride!

There are also several instances of dashes used incorrectly, most of which can be simply eliminated, or sometimes eliminated and replaced with a comma.

Finally, there is an egregious amount of comma errors. In several places you would do well to read closely, or perhaps have someone else read your paper with you and go over the places where commas should be inserted. One example would be in the second paragraph, in between "no economic opportunities" and "young Jude." But there are many others that should be considered.

Review of Peter Pan:
Focus very good (6)
Awesome paper, good job. The only thing I''d want to see more of is how you, personally, can tie this back to your own life. Why is he a role model specifically to you, and how has that impacted your life?

Organization very good (6)

There are a lot of editing errors that need to be taken care of, but they are small things, such as the inconsistency between Chicago and MLA citing formats, as well as certain places that you left in "cite" instead of adding in the correct information. Still, though, the progression throughout the paper is coherent and unified, so no big problems there.

Flow very good (6)
Aside from not having the required pictures (which is why you have a 6 and not a 7), your paper flows very well. It''s captivating and very easy to read through and enjoy. You don''t use cliche transitional phrases, for which I am eternally grateful, and still create a sense of unity throughout the work.

Review of Jane Austen:
Focus Average (4)
Your thesis was that Mills was a really great guy--apparently the best Victorian role model. You clearly know a lot about Mills, which is good, but after you state something good about Mills, you rarely, if ever, explain why that is a desirable trait in yourself and others. Just listing facts makes you an autobiographer. Listing facts and saying "he''s really awesome" makes you a fan. Instead, you should try and be an English major and explicate why these things are desirable. For instance, in the paragraph(s) that talk about the "no harm principle," you never clearly state what the no harm principle is, nor why we should, as readers, accept it and appreciate it in our own lives. Organization Very poor (2)
First, all of your footnotes should be end notes. They''re placed randomly and sporadically in between paragraphs, which makes no sense; these also distract from the flow. At one point (paragraphs 5 and 6), there are literally two paragraphs that say the same thing. The first paragraph seems to be more of a rough draft that was never removed, but regardless, this should have been caught well before it was ever turned in.

Additionally, the ideas are broken up along paragraphs, such as 7 and 9, which could easily be used to transition from religion into scientific method, but are instead broken up by an impertinent aside about something he did once.

Flow Disastrous (1)
The pictures are random, the paragraphs rarely follow through to each other, and there are many, many spelling, etc. errors that make this extremely unreadable, to the point where I actually could not finish. In paragraph 4, "an" and "and" are seemingly switched, the pictures are not at all integrated into the text, and the captions to the pictures are informal and distracting. Additional informal distractions include the eighth paragraph, when caps lock was used to draw attention to a particular clause in a sentence. It generally needs to be cleaned up and made into a formal essay, not an informal blog like a DB.

There are other problems, such as in the first paragraph, when each sentence seems disjointed and separated from the others, and in the eighth paragraph when "wittingly" and "mockingly" both straddle the same verb, but I think working on those things is strongly tertiary to the more pressing issues at hand.