For my online literary magazine review assignment, I decided to look at Action Yes Online Quarterly and the Baltimore Review. I have to say overall I am way more satisfied with the set-up of the Baltimore Review compared to that of Action Yes Online, although both are set up with photos of each issue’s artists with links to their works on the homepage, the way they look is dramatically different. For example, the Baltimore Review gives the viewer a more professional look, whereas the redness of Action Yes makes it appear borderline cartoonish or something. The pictures of each writer on the Baltimore Review also appear more flattering to the individual then to those of the writer’s on Action Yes. However, there is also a major difference in the poetry located on each site. A lot of what appears on Action Yes seemed to be structured very creatively, but it appeared as if the writer’s didn’t always take the time to proofread their works, or even put them into a more aesthetically pleasing form. Although I do appreciate the “printer-friendly” option that Action Yes has to offer. Overall I rather much enjoyed the Baltimore review. What I enjoyed most about it was the writer profiles one was introduced to after clicking on the writer’s picture. Not only does it show the specific piece of work, but each profile also has a little bio for each writer, and some even had previous works located just underneath.  Those writer’s using the Baltimore Review were also more prone to using memo’s underneath their poem or piece of fiction, describing whatever details they could.  Also, because the authors of the works found in the Baltimore Review took the time to proofread and form their poems, I found them to be much more desirable, interesting, and easier to read.