This article did not explain his reasoning for not running or what impacted his decision which could have made the article a lot more interesting.

This is great journalism because the article is about something that has touched peoples lives in a significant way. It is cited by people that have knowledge on the issue and states theirs positions

This is good journalism because it contains all the elements of a good article. It was in depth and well written, and cited persons that the empty reservoirs affect. The article also discussed solutions which I thought was really important to understanding the issue.

For an opinionated article, I was actually quite interested in what was being written about. Abortion is a trending topic politically and socially in the state of Maryland, especially the financial aspect of it.

This piece could have been a lot better if there was more factual information and credible sources behind it. I felt that there were a lot of details left out that could have made this article more in depth and informational.

I felt this was a very biased article therefore I was not very interested in its context.

This article offers both a positive and negative outlook on the use of nuclear energy compared to other forms of energy. I felt that there were a good deal of details and bits of sourced information that helped me to understand the article in a more in depth manner.

I do not think this is good journalism because although it was relevant and insightful, it did not offer me any real expert opinions or facts. And at the end it said the opinions were those solely based on the gentleman that wrote the piece.

This piece was a good representation of good journalism because it was very in depth and offered details that answered questions I would have raised by the end of the article. I was not left wondering anything or doubting the facts that were given which is a good sign.

This is extremely good journalism because it gives the opinions of the people experiencing the crisis.

Overall this is a good article however I do believe the writer could have spent a little more time on explaining the terms that were being used.

This is good journalism because not only do I believe that it provided factual information but the writer also referred back to similar situations in the past such as the earthquake of 1938.

I do not believe that the journalist provided factual information therefore not leading me to want to continue to read the article.