Pretty good job. However, in the page Example none of the links work. In the page "Styles of Rifting" the link to East African Rift doesn’t go anywhere. The link "Aulacogen" doesn’t seems to go where it should.
(Note added later: You right Robert, the links to East African Rift do work, however it seems that most of the links in the Example page are loosely defined.)

Organization:

I find the headings difficult to follow, large font bold, small font bold, italic, all this can be confusing. The best and a simple solution is to use this style -> II.1.3

Figures:
No coherent referencing. Each figure should be numbered Figure 1, Figure 2 etc and properly labeled. Each figure should be called in the text. The referencing in the pages Models and Structure is pretty good but keep in mind that no two figures should have the same number.

Your choice of pictures seems at time a bit odd such as the animation showing strike-slip faults. I have mpg movies showing brittle extension in the upper crust and ductile extension in the lower crust (GEOS3003 module 2) that would have been more appropriate for an E.Report on continental rifting.
In the page "Example" the last image should be properly oriented. On the picture the reader is looking south toward the Alps.

References:

None appears in the text of your report, and reference cited in the text such as McKenzie, 1978 are not included in the reference list. Also the font size in the reference page is not consistent.

Comments on the content.

A proper introduction is definitively missing in this report. A good introduction should encourage the reader to read it. In particular an introduction should stresses the importance of the topic and explain its overall significance. It should also describe the logic, which as been pursued in giving a brief description of the report’s plan. In particular the introduction should mention what topics are covered in the report and also the one that could have been covered but was overlooked.

The Causes of continental rifting.

Overall this section of poorly organized and poorly written. It reflects either a relatively poor general understanding or a poor capacity to explain clearly simple concepts. There are too many odd sentences such as:
Location may be controlled by ancient structural lineation….Location of what? Do you mean structural lineament?
….the lowest possible energy solution is to reactivate the large scale continental fabric of lineation. What is the meaning of “….fabric of lineation”?
….However the two primary factors are most likely contemporary and not ancient structures. “…primary factors…” of what? The reader does not always guess what is in your mind.

It is mentioned that sufficient basalt supply is required for continental rifting. This needs some explanation, as it is not clear how volcanism drive extension. An alternative and probably a more accurate view would be that volcanism is a consequence of extension not the direct cause. In the East African rifting volcanism is not a “driving force”. It is the gravitational force related to thermal thinning of the lithosphere, which introduces lateral variation in density and therefore lateral variation in gravitational potential energy, that drives deformation. Doming of the lithosphere above mantle plume could also contribute to the gravitational force since it involves the vertical displacement of density interface (base of the lithosphere, base of the crust, surface of the crust).

The process of continental rifting is primarily a result of a deviation from isostatic equilibrium in the presence of a tensional stress regime. This is a pretty complicated statement. What if the presence of tensional stresses was not accompanied by a deviation from the isostatic equilibrium? Could they still lead to continental rifting? Is isostatic disequilibrium a necessity in the development of continental rifting? In theory there is no problem of maintaining isostatic equilibrium during extension and rifting. Some more explanation here would have been useful.

The origin of this extensional force relates the primary driving force of plate tectonics, Mantle convection. Is this phrase saying that the primary driving force of plate tectonics is mantle convection?

There are many statements in the introduction of the section that deserve some explanation. For instance: The mechanism for plate break up is a poorly understood part of the Wilsonian cycle. The reader is waiting for some development that doesn’t come. It would have been good to explain in what our understanding of the plate break up is poorly constrain.

The origins of horizontal deviatoric tensional forces for the East African Rift.

A strain of 100-200MPa is required to break continental lithosphere. You probably mean stress instead of strain, the confusion between the two terms is usually of sign that basic concepts are not understood. Such a statement should be back-up by a reference.

There is a lack of clarity in that section. The link between volcanism and regional extensional stresses is not clear and at most indirect. More explanations are needed. When dealing with the dynamic of continental rifting it is hard to avoid the concepts of passive rifting and active rifting, yet both concepts do not rate a mention on your report.

Given that only the upper lithosphere responds elastically to stress, lower lithosphere plastically deforms. If only the upper lithosphere was responding elastically to stress then no seismic waves would propagate through the Earth. Simply put stresses concentrates in the stronger portion of the lithosphere as in the weaker portion stresses are released by flow.

Trench suction:
Trench suction appears to be the only mechanism producing lateral tensional force on an continental level. I don't think this is true but more importantly a reference is urgently needed here. Slab suction related to north dipping subduction zone in the northern African plate boundary cannot account for East-West extension in the East African rift system.

Consequences of Continental Rifting

A transition takes place when continental extension ceases and sea floor spreading begins. What transition? I guess that you mean transition between tectonic and thermal subsidence. If this is the case it is important to note that thermal subsidence can occur without sea floor spreading.

When a rift basin becomes an oceanic basin, the dominant driving forces of spreading change. Regional continental extension is replaced by ridge push and oceanic crust thermal subsidence. This would have been interesting to develop in the section dealing with the dynamic of continental rifting. It has little to do in a section about Consequences.

Economic
The formation of sedimentary basins is important for petroleum formation. I don’t see the point of having this sentence. It is either not enough or it is too much because not relevant to your report. It would have been simpler in the report's introduction to state that the Economic Geology of continental rift system although very important was not included in this report which focus mainly on geodynamic, tectonic and structural aspects of continental rifting.

Hazards, same comments as above.

Petrological. This section needs references.

This strange petrology… I don’t find the geochemistry (not petrology) of continental rift volcanics particularly strange, complex certainly but not strange. But the point is that if you do find this geochemistry strange then please explain why.

Debate over whether incompatible elements are derived from trapped asthenosphere, deeper mantle or sub crustal lithosphere. Is this an english sentence?

I would have expected something about thermal consequences as well as mechanical consequences of continental rifting.

Style of Rifting

This segment clearly needs an introduction. We jump straight into “Type One” without knowing what this section is all about and how it relates to the former sections.

The formation of triple junctions has been rare in geological history… reference please.

I don’t see the point of having a particular glossary for that section.

Models of continental rifting.

Some problems here but overall and despite some major flaws it reads well.

The introduction is a bit odd. A model is by definition is simplified view that encapsulated the main elements of a natural process or phenomenon. If your model is too elaborate and too complex then it is likely that it will only apply to very few natural cases if at all. A good model should be widely applicable, with little modification to explain local particularity.

The second point I would like to stress is that more that one model can coexist. Indeed there is nothing wrong in having two a more models to explain a tectonic setting as complex as continental rifting. The fact that no two continental rifts are alike suggests that there is many processes and parameters that control the development of continental rift.

The McKenzie and the Wernicke models are fundamentally different because one is highly symmetric because based on pure shear tectonic regime and the second is highly asymmetrical because based on a simple shear tectonic regime. In nature both pure shear and simple shear are applicable. The same is true for the McKenzie and the Wernicke models. No one pretends that one model is better that the others.

Figure 1: What is its purpose?

Quantitative pure-shear versus qualitative simple-shear, it is not clear why one model is quantitative and why the other is qualitative. Please explain.

A pure-shear regime refers to a change in shape without a change in volume, …this statement is simply wrong.

Infact, the asthenoshpere comes in contact with the base of the lithosphere. As it always does…but please correct those spelling mistake.

The upper hanging wall brittlely deforms, …brittely…

Wernicke’s model has been enthusiastically accepted. However, many others do not believe asymmetrical systems actually exist in the field. References please.

Structure of rift systems.

This section is boring, it cames straight out of my lectures.
Deformation during extention is brittle in the upper crust. It is also brittle during compression.

Example of continental rifting.

This section would have gained to be a bit longer and more detailed. An example of wide rift such as the Basin and Range would have been good. But overall it is pretty well written and illustrated.

Reference: Links to other web resources is good, but please refers to my early comments.

Technical with E.Report is good but its content lack of precision. There are hardly any references in the text and figures are not properly referenced. Major concepts are missing e.g. Active Rifting, Passive Rifting, Narrow Rift, Wide Rift, Thermal Consequences to name a few. You may have borrowed to much from the structure of a past E.Report when you should have trusted yourself a bit more.