Very interesting feature piece on a more underground subject. The consistent key phrase that kept running through my head was 'wordy'. Words like "peripatetic" and "indefatigable" made me feel like this story was more high class than I was used to reading. Because of this I feel like the story was catered towards a more selective audience and I was not one of them. I ended up skimming through some of the middle paragraphs as the story stalled for me. Overall it is well-written, however it was hard for me to focus on the entire piece as I read it.

Where is the sourcing? It's hard to take this seriously as a piece because it is so lacking in clarity. This story needs a lot of work.

The writing in this piece is clean and simple, which for me leads to the best stories. That said, I enjoyed reading about the proposals Baltimore is considering to attract visitors to the Inner Harbor. The sources are balanced and credible, and the flow of the story is smooth. One suggestion I would have is not to use excessive paraphrasing in successive paragraphs. All in all, interesting and fun to read, a rarity in today's news.

I think that this piece had a good concept and brought light to East Monument Street. I personally learned more about the culture and history of this part of Baltimore. Construction wise, I thought that the author used good quotes, but some paragraphs were a little long, and I also felt like the flow of the article could have been tailored a little better. The historical facts also felt like a bit too much for a feature read. All in all, a good piece.

This is not good journalism because the story is sloppy in its writing. The format is confusing to read, and punctuation and grammar errors make it frustrating to continue reading. The sources the author uses are biased and local. The opinion of the author is also evident in the way he bashes the subject matter. As the reader, I had no idea where Martha's Vineyard was and had to look it up just to understand the scope of the story. A lack of background information also made me do my own research on the subject. Overall, this story leaves me with more questions than answers, and the few answers that were provided were unfair and biased.

Interesting piece on a seldom-discussed topic (at least for me). Appleton did a good job sourcing relevant sources as well as providing interesting facts and photos that contributed to her story. I also like how the story tied in something that I as an average college student could relate to - social media sharing - into bird watching. The story was pulled together well and although a little lengthy, I could read and digest it while I scrolled down the story.

Although labeled "News Flash", I would think that something as brutal as assault would have more substance. What exactly was the motive? Violence is not something that "just happens", there must be a reason. This story needs more factual evidence and background.

I was drawn to this story because of it's relevance factor for me personally. That said, I had higher expectations of this piece being fair and factual, given my personal knowledge and experience with the topic. I thought this story was balanced, if a little rough in it's transitions and flow. I appreciated that it highlighted both the good and bad of Caret's term as President of Towson University. The conclusion was good because it looked to the future and a possible follow up. Interesting for me as a student and audience member.

Very interesting and well written piece. The sources were integrated well into the story and provided credibility to the piece. Good insight by a thorough reporter.

Bias, rumors, and one Councilman's opinion does not equal good sourcing. No direct Mfume quotes or sourcing makes this a weak story.

First, I've never been a fan of a question in the lead. It actually slightly repels me from continuing to read the piece. However, used in context a question lead can be effective, and in this story it did not deter me from reading. All that said, I thought that the story was incomplete. The conclusion restated the fact that the actual costs of Schaefer's funeral procession and public farewells were not released to the public. For the most part, the story's backbone leaned on Schaefer earning military honors upon celebrating his death. The story could have focused more on Schaefer's military career more so than the unknown funeral expenses, and in my opinion would have been a better story.

The lead was lengthy, which somewhat explained the jumpiness of the piece. I thought that the numbers were trying to be put in context with the story, but to be honest I had to read several parts over to relate it all together. While I trust that the story is accurate, it made me feel that I had to do the math to truly understand the scope of the story.

Good, solid journalism that is balanced, flows and most importantly is relevant. Easy to read and digest.

Towson students participating in any political action will always draw me to read the story. Relevant topic considering the political climate and culture we live in, so close to D.C. Good quotes from relevant sources. Any reaction from supporters directly against the bill would have made this more balanced.

Not much sourcing. Some bias, considering the focus of the story. The story can definitely be tighter in its execution and flow. It feels more like something I would expect in someone's blog, not a publication. Interesting to me, a Towson University student, but may not grab other audiences. I would definitely like to read more pieces about Towson, but modifications to grab a broader audience should also be considered.

Strong piece that is timely and relevant. Good sourcing. Covers all the angles of the piece, and addresses all the issues surrounding not only the issue but leaves room for a follow up piece.

The bias is evident in this story - "Dougherty... raised a very good question". Writing could definitely be tighter. Interesting topic, with work could have been more more interesting.

I think this is great journalism based on the relevance and construction of the piece. The story runs smoothly and every paragraph is well-supported by quotes and facts. A very interesting and entertaining read.

Solid journalism. The story was hard news and was about as impartial as possible. The story was clear and easy to read, although a bit wordy with all the quotes that were squeezed in. However, even with all the quotes they were still used in context of the story and gave me both sides of the issue of same-sex legisation issues in Maryland. The story was also relevant to me, a Maryland native, and also provided insight into House meetings. All in all, a good piece.