This is good. The language analysis is there and you make clear comparisons and have clear effects to accompany your analysis. You also clearly understand how language is used with relation to the text, because you do make some clear references to the content of the article, rather than just having a piece
filledwith generalisations, such as 'it makes it catchy', 'adds authority', 'engages the reader'.
Some improvements:
You need more thorough comparisons, such that you are comparing the ways in which
language is used for effect. You might want to refrain from being quite simplistic in your comparisons, by saying 'similarly', 'on the other hand' etc.; instead, you want to have a comparison in which you talk about a similarity and a difference in the ways in which language is used. So:
Although the writers of source one and source three both use juxtaposition within their articles, the writer of source three employs a subtle juxtaposition in semantic fields +.....
Both of the writers use sensory language within their articles, albeit in source three, the writer intertwines his sensory language with sensuous sounds and lists to help make the destruction seem ironically tangible +......
Another thing you want to do is avoid the use of generalised effects. Knowing an examiner myself, on questions that target analysis, generalised effects are awarded a Band 2, as they fail to be 'clear' or 'perceptive'. By generalised, I mean saying effects that can be applied to any article, such as 'this intrigues the reader', 'this makes the reader want to read on', 'this makes the reader curious/engaged/excited'. What you're not doing here is being specific to the article you write about, which is vital for the higher bands. However, although most of your effects are not generalised, you still have a few elements of generalisation which I feel as though you could omit.
Better comparisons and more perception within your effects will allow you to move into the higher marks of Band 4. This would be a 13/16.
Posted from TSR Mobile