A rounded and balanced, if short, piece that, unusually, gives a fairly decent summary of the points raised by both sides in a big court case.

Nicely balanced piece drawing together the opinions of various sides. Deeper analysis of the basis upon which these claims are made would help the reader make an informed decision.

Another article that cannot resist the temptation to sensationalize - "even more likely [to hit someone]". A chance of one in 2,000 is hardly "likely". The writing isn't great, either. However, at least they are covering ROSAT; coverage is low, having been focused on UARS a lot of late. On a more positive note, citing the ESA's expert and manufacturer DSL shows some effort to get some decent information in; and, the facts are here. They're just hiding.

I have a conflict here - I have worked with the author, and like both him and his work. A reasonable piece, I feel; the only thing spoiling a perfect neutrality (fairness) rating is "tirade". It feels harsh to knock an entire fifth off for that! But, such are the limitations of graded reviews. Overall recommendation, and view of this article, stands at average. Though not a massive, in-depth piece, it's a solid work and perfectly good coverage that would not look out of place within any good well-known publication.

This article is hopeless. The photographs are pretty, sure; but there, the positives end. The article seeks to make us believe ants have well-developed brains capable of affection, and have things like mothers and sons playing. What nonsense! Queen ants never leave the nest. They are the only fertile female, except when winged females are produced to start new colonies, and therefore the only "mother". Neither are ants capable of things like fun. The existance of an ant is purely a functional one.

Very comprehensive coverage of a potential future space mission. Could be more neutral if maybe a rival project commented on why it shouldn't get the slot its aiming for.

Has made the effort to contact a selection of people in this case. Did their background research properly. Great work.

"READ THE REST OF THIS PIECE AT WEBECOIST.COM" it screams at me. Eh, no, I came to read it here and I don't take kindly to being told to start again.

Very short article providing precious little information and citing only one official. I'd have liked some official quotes and comments from those displaced. The writing is terrible; every 'paragraph' is just one sentence long. EDIT: The publication has taken the decision to rewrite entirely. Much better now, a decent piece.

A mix of various people's opinions and the facts behind them. A decent article, it could have given a touch more background - why was it arranged for this meeting to occur in the first place? Who else met them? I did like the 'in the field' nature given by talking direct to the fisherman dealing with the results, something which is usually done badly as an asside to the facts. One more problem, however, is that while climate change sceptics are mentioned the basis for their scepticism is not mentioned. Overall, however, this is a decent pieve of reporting.

I used this article to cite some quotes for something I was writing and was immediately unimpressed. It's nice to know the author cares so much about the dead Indonesians that she almost forgets to mention any were killed at all, despite the fact the Indon toll was worse than the Australian one. There is little discussion of the circumstances or the defendent's case (nor, indeed, the grounds for the initial conviction, which were not the high speed as implied). The author's bias is clearly stated in the headline without any attempt to analyse, attack or even explain the court decision or talk to anyone with any understanding of the industry. Dreadful coverage of what is actually quite a sensitive and controversial issue.

Coverage biased heavily against Mr Blair. Also, perhaps they should explain just why the lawyers of a deceased deposed dictator (aliteration not intended) believe they have the right to bring a war crimes trial? Are they intending a private prosecution in London?

Very little context or explanation of how each side has reached the conclusion it has. Overly reliant on a YouTube video with a clear agenda in support of one specific side.

The article is somewhat confused; the section in the middle on the actual conference appears shoved in as an afterthought, and there is no attempt to make the article flow into this section and then flow back out again. Plenty is said about what those supporting the arrested think, but little attention is given until the end to the Copenhagen police statement.

I liked this article. It makes a decent job of giving the controversial background to this with fair reference to both sides. It could be helped style-wise by merging some of those one-sentence paragraphs.

Presents the view of a single scientist. Could be ebtter by asking one or two more. Also, some of the arguments presented against artificial trees (they need transported, they go to landfill) are just as true of many real trees. It presents a good argument but ruins its position by overdoing it. A shame, this was a good idea for a story.

This brief article makes plenty of assumptions but there is apparently no effort to back them up. Written in a single, massive paragraph it's all talk and few facts.

A deadlink now, but quick research indicates this was never a news story. Why is this even here?