In addition to the observations in the text, please note the following dot points as notes of constructive feedback:

Analysis:

- Evident comprehension of the case on display, though with some confusions as to the legal outcome - the Court finding very much made it illegal for there to be same sex marriages, thus necessitating further legislative change. Either way, note that this display of knowledge can be deepened considerably, however, by providing pinpoint references to specific elements in the judicial reasoning. The comprehension you show here is sound, but also abstracted: we want to give our readers more detailed and specific knowledge than a Wikipedia-ish summary.

- Use of multiple legal theories to analyze the case results in a broad, though ultra-brief, coverage of the possible permutations of theoretical engagement with the case. This creates opportunity for a number of rewarding insights, but unfortunately prevents you from being able to explore any position in particular depth - something to be aware of as a strategy in the future!

- There is room for improvement where specific pinpointing of the judgment is concerned - tying together the analysis with the object being analyzed is helpful for showing the evidence for your observations to the reader.

- Very little in the way of further research is apparent; the submission adheres closely to provided materials and Subject texts. Subject texts (like Connecting with Law and 'The Case of the Speluncean Explorer') don't exactly demonstrate the ability to discover and integrate further material to the argument! Aside from the fact that further research was requested by the task, note that it is also valuable as a source of information and authority for informing your analysis, and supporting your critique.

- The scattergun approach to mentions of theory has the consequence that definitions of key theoretical terms are done ultra-quickly, effectively taking for granted that the audience understands the specific meanings that you are attributing to each theoretical approach. It can be helpful to explore this more fully in future submissions: often, the definitions of our key criteria will be highly decisive, and thus will serve as a point of argument. In particular, I note that the concepts, such as NLT and positivism, employed here do not give much recognition to the diversity of different versions of each theory - this can significantly change the agreeability of the argument, and so is worth at least considering. This is also a great place to demonstrate and make use of further research.

Critique:

- This submission needed to take a bit more time to engage in possible debate in its analysis. The best way to for this would be to more thoroughly and explicitly engage with counterarguments to the positions considered. It is not quite enough to simply frame jurisprudential theories as being in tension with one another: we need to grapple with the value-based arguments which different theorists put forward for why their version of the theory should be preferred.

- The critical focus of this submission was on whether positivism or natural law theory, or indeed any other theory, would be the more effective diagnosis for the reasoning in the case. Note, though, that this kind of yes-or-no inquiry misses out on the deeper question of whether the judgment was good and defensible, or whether positivism or natural law theory are useful for generating practical insight into the case. Try to take further critical opportunities like these - although more challenging points of discussion, they give you more opportunity to show off your insight and ability than a simple colour-swatch comparison exercise.

- Some key points of argument needed further development to fully land.

- Be prepared to skeptically challenge claims - this is an important facet of criticality. This submission is sometimes at risk of conceding too greatly to the authority of the court or to the loose theoretical definitions which the discussion assumed, thus missing out on the potential dimensions of arguability in court/theorist reasoning.

- It is one thing to state arguments, and quite another thing to argue them. Try to avoid superficially listing points of argument and critique in a dot-point form, and genuinely engage with them to explain why they might be valid, and to evaluate whether they should change our ultimate impressions of the material.In future, try to move from stating arguments as dot-pointish factual claims, to actually arguing with, and arbitrating the winner of, competing value positions. Which should we agree with? is the fundamental question to ask, and seek to answer; whether the reasoning of the case is more positivist than not is only the first step to having this deeper, more rewarding conversation.

Structure:

- The most important structural point for the future is the need for a clear core argument which forms the point of the essay. Being clear and explicit about what this argument is, and how each section contributes to it, is essential for a successful and persuasive critical analysis essay.

- Great summary and background for the case. The introduction is, however, missing an outline of the core argument for the submission, and the steps that will be taken to try to communicate it to the audience. In future, it will be helpful to keep in mind, focally and structurally, the need to draw reader attention to the point you will be trying to convince them of - this is important to the concept of a critical analysis essay.

- No title marks a slight missed opportunity for additional structure and personalization.

- Structural logic is transparent and clear from the headings employed, and from the paragraph structure, but reveals as a structural issue the limited amount of time and space which has been given to explore each theory that is mentioned. The ambitious approach which tries to cover everything does indeed serve as a way to generate a number of interesting comments, but ultimately really sucks up your resources and gets in the way of possible argument depth. To the extent that this is a feature of the strategy as a whole, it reflects a structural issue: your attention here is spread too thin across the various theories you want to discuss, damaging the ability to achieve depth on any of them. In future, plan a structure that allows you to explore fewer points in greater depth.

Style:

- Highly readable although given to excessive repetition of sentence structures, this submission sets a professional and appropriate tone for its inquiries.

- Neat formatting, nice paragraphs and headings. Consider employing AGLC style headings for further neatness.

- Remember to format: justify paragraphs for a final touch of professional neatness!

- Keep in mind that, while law doesn't have much regard for excessive poetics, it can be rewarding to jazz up the poetic qualities of your content for a more expressive showing of your critical voice. Part of persuasion is entertaining your reader, as much as it is bludgeoning them with logic.

- Italics use in the text needs to follow the same rules as it would in a footnote; the legal profession uses italics for emphasis or for indicating that a document is an independent source of information. That means, we need to italicize cases and statutes when we mention them.

- This submission features a few occasions of excessive repetition of content without necessarily advancing the discussion on the point. Look out for this in future - clear structural signposting and emphasizing a return to a point are both valuable, but care must be taken to avoid non-productive repetition.

Citations:

- Generally diligent and effective citation catchment; sound citation forms, barring the absence of italics and the need for full stops for grammatical closure.

- Some missed opportunities to provide citations to specific points in the judgment. Remember - every time a representative comment is made, it is generally appropriate and valuable to give a citation to guide the reader to your evidence. Pinpoints are appropriate, wherever possible.

- Subsequent referencing will need work for future submissions - we avoid repetition of citation information by using ibid, (n x), and short titles as techniques of efficiency. Consult AGLC Rule 1.4 up to Rule 1.5 for further information.

- Italics are absent throughout. These are non-optional elements of citation - the legal profession uses italics to designate status as a source.

using the above feedback

What were the main strengths and weaknesses identified by the marker in relation to your first assignment? To what extent do you agree with the marker's views about your work? How will you apply the feedback received for the first assignment to better prepare for your final assignment for Legal Analysis and Critique?