While I admit this is not the BEST story I have read about renewable energy, it is well-sourced and presents both sides of the argument clearly. It explains both the benefit and the expense of converting trash into energy. My criticism of the piece is that while the reporter did her job of remaining objective, the story does not come to any real conclusions. The issue presented remains two-sided and does not convince me to feel one way over the other, though it did educate me on the possibility of converting trash to energy.

The reporter uses good examples to exemplify the situation and brings in key companies as examples. While it is clearly a good thing for many of these jobs to be brought back to America, the reporter does not convey his opinion strongly, if at all. There are a lot of helpful numbers included with further explains how it benefits both companies and Americans by bringing these jobs back to the U.S. It is well written and well sourced.

Danielle Chazen This is good journalism because it is well sourced with reliable, credible quotes from professionals with expertise in this area. It is not opinionated, but explains the methods of gathering information on this topic. The graphics included at the bottom are also very informative and present the information in an innovative, visual way.

This is good journalism because it doesn't showcase a bias. It presents both sides of the issue and uses many quotes from the soldier's father, the judges and even a Westboro member/attorney. I find the content of this story very saddening, but it appeals to the emotions of the reader without reflecting bias, which is difficult to do. It is also very informative and presents many facts and details about the situation.

It is informative, but not the best article I have read on this issue. It brings in several officials and their views, but also seems very opinionated. It was interesting to see the author pull political affiliations and party beliefs about the climate change to the forefront of the issue.

The story did not come to any good conclusions. It presented the existing problem of illegal immigration, but didn't really delve into what should be done. The reporter used Obama's visit as a way to bring attention to the issue, but I don't think the way the story was written in a way that is that informative to readers. The reporter could have used better examples to explain the problem of immigration and why it is such a dire issue in the area, rather than use an example (Gibson's accident) which was later proved to not be any fault in the hands of the illegal immigrant.

I really like the way Gleick explained and proved the inaccuracies presented. He broke down the errors individually and concisely and explained each one-- which I found to be an informative technique. I think this article demonstrates that despite someone's title and experience (Schmitt's) we still must remain skeptical of their claims and truly think about them. Right off the bat, if Schmitt can't spell the word "Arctic" correctly, we should know something is up. I think this article demonstrated how careful we must be in believing what we read, even if it appears to come from a credible source. This article also showed how careless the writer was in his work since after being corrected, he still chose not to make the ... More »

I believe the story tells a great deal of information that is helpful to those who live within the community affected. My only critique (and this is without knowing what section this story was grouped under on The Sun Web site) was that the article does appear very opinionated. If the story is under the editorial section than I believe it is written very well and presents strong points, but this piece does offer the writer's opinion, which some do not consider "hard, unbiased journalism."