Little to no editorial content along with an intention to provide multiple sides - yes, this is quality journalism.

The story ignores the courtroom practicalities of this case and presents a piece of information somewhat out of context. Given the current climate, it's easy to jump to the conclusion that the US is asserting this right. The attorney in this case is simply presenting the US position based on legal precedent.

Good article. Very fact based (basically quoting debate transcripts).

Politics aside, this article makes assertions in nearly every paragraph without attribution. If you believe in the authors position you will likely love the article. Otherwise, you're left picking at individual assertions. The author would have been better served by referencing the sources for the various assertions. Drawing analogies between any standing president with Hitler and Stalin is hard to defend and clearly makes it impossible to evaluate this article as balanced.

It is an op-ed piece. Likely, all of the author's assertions are accurate - but no effort is made to provide a balance.

The authors directly interviewed Chinese distributors at a trade show. Going directly to the source is of course a good approach - but trade shows are populated by sales reps - and sales reps do not commonly exhibit close adherence to facts. They embellish when it is helpful to do so. I would characterize this article as preliminary towards a deeper investigative effort - but Chinese sources will be hard to come by.

It's so hard to get balanced deep analysis of the Muslim world. It is essentially an op-ed piece but very well sourced. It's purpose is to influence as much as it is to inform so it should be consumed with some caution. I am perhaps less informed then the common westerner on the subject but I find this article very informative.

The article pulls quotes from the debate. It's well sourced at that level because it only intends to critique her performance in the debate. Hillary Clinton's ability to provide direct answers to direct questions is comparable to other politicians - but as a front runner she provides and easy target to her opponents. They leveraged the circumstance and illustrated her well developed political double talk. That should not warrant much surprise for any politician.

This is a complicated subject and clearly the candidate has not 'done his homework'. The article fails in two regards. After carefully dismantling Giulani's statistics, the tone of the article grows negative. The article was more compelling without the 'bogus' as well as dwelling on the mislabeling of the UK versus England results. That's not an uncommon mistake for many US citizens to make. The second shortcoming of the article is the author's inability to address the big picture. The big picture on this subject is treacherous to portray so I'm probably being too critical here - but the big picture is left unclear (at least to me) at the end of the article.

I haven't been paying much attention to the other stories reviewed here, but an earlier person rightly pointed out that this is an op-ed piece. Whether you agree with the opinions or not - they are just opinions. The evaluation criteria seem inappropriate for this kind of article.

Overall - a good article. This is new content to me - a subject I personally have not seen covered elsewhere.

Short and to the point but some of assertions are not fact based.

Pulling references out of a recently published books, the insights are interesting and in some cases surprising. I will need to read the book to know how well the articles characterization of his the book author's opinions are reported.

My biggest criticism with this article is that it is so narrowly reporting events that it does not reach conclusions about the big picture.