...
1: Broad Audience Feedback
This design emphasizes simplicity of the feedback collection process from a broad audience (i.e. public reception).
Jenny uploads her image and adds commenters. She can create/edit groups by dragging and dropping users around.
...
This UI is potentially unsafe. So far, it doesn't present any way for the artist to easily retract a piece of work, or for a commenter to delete a comment. However, these features can be easily incorporated into the UI.
2: In Depth Feedback
This design targets depth of feedback for detailed, categorized reviews and directed critique from groups and individuals with domain knowledge expertise. It takes into account versioning and emphasizes categorization of feedback directly on the artwork.
Jenny uploads her work for review and gives it a title. 
...
Jenny can explore the reviewer feedback entered above and filter based on reviewer group.
Analysis
Learnability
Overall, this interface is learnable as the artist is taken through a guided and constrained set-up process in which each step is independent. It's unclear from the current design how the artist should manage multiple works out for review. Most all of the reviewer's affordances are displayed clearly in the dashboard, but two aspects of this UI may be a bit harder to learn for the reviewers and would benefit from clear affordance and information scent: 1) The scrollable timeline that updates the artwork comments, and 2) the clickable artwork area to input comments directly.
Efficiency
This interface lacks efficiency compared to other proposed designs. The artist is forced to go through the same set of steps to upload a work without the ability to skip steps or set defaults. Review of comments is efficient for the artist, as it is presented directly on the artwork and symbols and tags limit the time to act on the feedback. Direct manipulation and comments entered directly on the artwork area is relatively efficient from an input perspective as all actions are displayed on the dashboard. The reviewer also has flexibility as to how in-depth their reviews are, so they are not forced into a cumbersome user experience (unlike the artist). In this design, we do not allow the reviewer a means to quickly go over multiple works at the same time, which could hurt efficiency if they have a lot of similar works to consider. Likewise, the artist does not have the ability to review all comments for all versions at once.
Safety
Although it's difficult to make mistakes, there is no way for the artist to navigate backwards in the setup dialog or go back and edit preferences after the fact. The interface may be unsafe to reverse comments for the reviewers--perhaps the reviewers should be able to "push" all comments periodically rather than having comments integrate automatically into the artist's view. Also, if the artist were to delete comments no longer relevant (as an improvement) that could be unsafe as well (mistakes).
3: Integrated Feedback
This design aims for a higher level of interactivity and uses of complementary software such as photo editing and social networks for sharing.
Analysis
Learnability
This design may not be very learnable. It requires the artist to be familiar with both the art generation technology as well as the art sharing technology (e.g. Facebook). The art sharing technology in particular may be difficult for a new user to learn simply for sharing their art. Similarly, the commenters must be familiar with the art sharing technology (and may be required to have an account) in order to give feedback. However, it is expected that most artists and commenters are already familiar with networking applications such as Facebook.
...