Here is an analysis of my colleage Audrey's Blog:
Audrey's post clearly shows her learning and research process. It looks like she did a lot of research and tried different approaches and sources. Her research seems to be very thorough (almost did a Thoreau pun there, heh). She developed her ideas well and found something good to focus on. It looks like she made use of others' comments.
I think the focus is very clear. She focuses specifically on the Zapatistas as a part of Digital civil disobedience. Her comprehesive series of posts is very cohesive and connected. She always brings it back to Thorough's "Civil Disobedience"
She has expository posts and posts that show how she is exploring. She also shows that she reflects and evaluates. She reviews and discusses different sources, organizations, and an event-related post. She has good images and relevant video clips.
She has a sense of the community surrounding the topic and made efforts to find and communicate with those people.
Her posts have very thorough exposition. She covers the topic well. It's formal when it needs to be. If anything I think there may be too much information. The posts get fairly long. I suppose it could be simplified a bit. It could have used a bit more analysis or even opinion.
Design: The design is good; reflects her personality/looks nice.
Overall it's a very well-written blog that deals with a relevant, interesting topic.
The Criteria: I think they address everything that could be necessary for a good blog. I don't think all of them are always necessary, though. For instance, videos, events.