This article is good journalism because it meets and exceeds much of the criteria listed on the rating scale. The story goes into details about the loss of federal lead-paint funding and it is relevant because this recently happened on Monday. Since the story is very well-sourced it shows credibility and the writing is also at a high professional level.

This story seems incomplete and there should have been more information on the crime since it is an unusual event that occurred. There were no sources cited, so the credibility of this story is unverifiable. The story leaves you wanting to know more about the incident since so little is said. The story is not put in context because the "big picture" isn't described. There is no background information on the teenager and his relationship with the grandmother. Whether or not he has had a history with violence or have been in trouble before could be part of putting the story into context for the reader.

This story did not use investigative reporting and could have tried to speak more people and provide more detail. The back-story is basically left out and the article skims the surface of the issue.

This was a good example of journalism, being an article that is informing the public about the expansion of TFA into Baltimore County. However, the writer only quotes/mentions one source, so it seems like the article was done quickly. It gets the point across and is relevant to the topic.

I wasn't aware of American Thinker before I read this article so I wasn't too sure about trusting the publication, but I think the article was overall decent and informative if looking for information about Michelle Rhee. It is well-written and factual but could have used more sources.

I think this story is good journalism because of its originality in discussing the difficulty of getting accepted into the Teach for America program. It has many facts and information about acceptance rates and numbers and talks to a variety of sources. The story is also interesting and insightful.

This article displays good journalism but could have been longer rather than being a short article that was basically just an overview of what Domino Sugar is doing to fight childhood hunger. Only one person was interviewed that was from Domino so it might have been more helpful to speak to someone not directly from the company. Overall, for a short article I think it did its job in informing readers of the program.

I don't really have any criticism about this story and I think it is an example of good journalism. It does a good job of informing readers about the program and includes credible sources that add depth to the story.

I think the article was written well and contained relevant facts but could have sourced more people to get more of an inside look on childhood hunger. Overall, it was informative about the campaign but an average news story with nothing that original.

I think this article is somewhat informative, giving actual costs of training for teachers. However, I think it could have been written better and would be more credible if there were more sources or people quoted throughout the article. It does not seem like a completely balanced article because of the writer using words such as "surely" and "given what Mr. Alonso already..." which are leading words and may influence the reader's opinion on the topic.

I think this story was a well-written article about Teach for America in Baltimore and was fair, giving both sides of the positives and negative opinions of the program. The story is good journalism because it is examining specific people who were part of the TFA program as well as stating facts and being an informative article with subheads to break it up.

I think this article is poor because of the writing errors and it could have been edited better. The story is poor because it is mainly relying on other people's opinions and the writer could have gotten more credible sources for quotes and information. The story does not give much useful information about the issue.