Report #1
This is a strong report, with good research, clear details and effective writing. You could deepen your analysis a bit more, considering why AP's approach seems to be effective in reaching its target audience and how it distinguishes itself from other nature/educational channels. The wiki editing seemed to be unequally distributed amongst your team - make sure everyone is participating equally. Your presentation was a bit less organized than it should have been - clarify who is supposed to cover what material more in advance, and practice the coordination between speakers. --Jason Mittell 21:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Reports #2 & 3
These reports are fairly erratic, with some good points and analysis interspersed with awkward writing and underdeveloped sections. Work on revising for maximizing clarity and analysis throughout, and fixing formatting of italics. Your presentations lacked a sense of planning and polish, with vague points and weak structure. The balance between group members is a significant problem, with lack of participation across the entire group based on the editing history on the wiki. --Jason Mittell 21:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)