This is a very well-organized story. Each successive paragraph addresses any questions that could arise from the consequences stated in the lede and other early paragraphs. I enjoyed the pace. Gradually zooming out from the lens over Maryland to the lens over the entire NFL made for a clear read.

This is an interesting display of how the NFL encourages fans of all teams to give back to the community. With all of this information and research though, I'm surprised to not have found any quotes from any of the inductees.

My head still hasn't stopped spinning from all of this data. Spacing some of those figures throughout a lengthier article with more insight may have helped the reader soak in more of the information. However, the source of this article also must be considered, and it's understandable that the Baltimore Business journal would opt to let the numbers speak for themselves.

This is a nice glimpse of the Brigance family's efforts, but it's just that-- a glimpse. I would have liked to have read insight from a doctor that is familiar with ALS, although the quotes from Chanda Brigance added depth. Expert testimony would have complemented her quotes well.

I can understand the reasons behind getting quotes from fans, but it could have been done in a much more organized manner. There's almost no added substance to this article, and just seems like a cutting room floor for quotes of people that aren't even attributed. Another thing I noted: The misspelling of Roethlisberger about 3/4 of the way through the article.

This article paints a detailed picture of a family in "foreclosure limbo, " as Professor Schilling said. Everything from the description of the air filters to the initial roof-blowing incident effectively grabs the reader. The author showed plenty of initiative by getting an extensive source list, however, some of the transparency of the article became lost when statistics were cited without attribution. Overall, it was a very illuminating read from an author who more than demonstrated her ability to research and record.

Shocking, illuminating and informative. The author displays tremendous initiative by researching the repercussions of laws made with the illusion that they protect women. Through individual cases, Goldberg provides a deep context and shows both sides of the issue.

This article provides a lot of informative details, but leaves out some key ones, most notably the law that Daniel Gross believes the perpetrators are violating. Because of the absence of the law and/or its interpretation, readers can easily be confused as to why it's possible to steal a free paper. It also is a bit questionable that this article is being written three weeks after the fact, but did a good job updating the progress of the investigation (or lack thereof).

This article doesn't really offer any unique perspective whatsoever. The comments about Trump are not even first-hand interviews-- they're taken from columns written by other journalists. Also, adjectives like "sexist" and "sleazy" in the lede are blatantly biased (even if they are accurate). The author should have just let the reader interpret Trump's quotes rather than prefacing them with these adjectives. The reader could have gotten all of this content from other publications which actually took the time to gather the content first-hand.

This is an informative read, although I'm not sure I can find much credibility from reports which make claims based on unfounded evidence. Other than the payslip which proved excessive overtime and the anti-suicide pledge, there really wasn't any hard evidence suggesting the worker's claims were concrete. Also, I'm not sure what style this publication adheres to, but "non-governmental organization" should probably not be abbreviated on first-reference.

I can't really say I feel more informed after reading this. Polls are easy to read and easy to process, but more-so measure the direction instead of the intensity of those who were polled. I would have liked to have read quotes from people who voted a certain direction to have a better idea of what people were truly feeling rather than relying on a statistic to explain everything. I'll add though that it is alarming that 20% of Americans polled had not heard of the Tea Party.

The article makes an interesting point, but I wouldn't take it for anything more than a blog-post to be read in passing. Donald Trump cutting costs isn't exactly newsworthy, although his doing so poses an interesting contradiction. On top of that, there is no effort to find a counterargument, and makes the article appropriate for a quick read and little else.

Concise, yet in-depth. It's a brief article which includes initiative to search outside the box for progress on Tigerfest as well as reaching a member of CAB for confirmation of the announcement. The addition of a student's reaction provides icing on the cake. Well done.

Great article. Provides deep context, and is gripping from the lede until the closing. It's very in depth and portrays the increasing open-mindedness across campus pertaining to sex education. My only critique would be to get a deeper perspective from countering viewpoints. It certainly includes them, but not much beyond that not everyone agrees with the increasing openness. In other words, it could have included more of the "why" instead of the "what", but it's a strong article nonetheless.

I would have liked to have seen the initiative to get reactions from some of the Brazilian laborers, or interviews with Martha's VIneyard locals. Comments from a newspaper site aren't always the most accurate representation of an entire community, and can be brash and outlandish. Also, I'm not sure what style this publication adheres to, but I noticed a couple of errors: Brandy Gibson does not need the "Miss" courtesy title and Barack Obama does not need the "Mr." courtesy title in second reference, according to the Associated Press stylebook.