The article is well-written and gives advice that most, if not all, people can follow. But it doesn't seem very new or innovative. This sort of advice has been appearing everywhere since the recession -- and even before, in some publications. It's a good article, just not very original.

Not only is it factual, the author of this article presents expert opinion about the future of biofuels as a whole. New science is introduced through the extraction process, but the economics and commerciability of algae as biofuel is discussed. The article could be a bit more detailed, but overall it is a nice, objective, and informative science article.

As reporting goes, this article states the facts well and summarizes the results of the survey that was one part of the larger GoingGreen conference. The article would benefit from an expansion in scope to include, perhaps, a relevant forum, discussion, or panel at the conference to deepen the survey results. The author should relate this one piece to other pieces about the conference or to the event as a whole.

The article itself is very informative if a bit dry in tone. As a report of a recent study, I feel it is done well. However, the article could be improved with the additions of interviews from people living in the affected cities or from another expert about pollution or the effort to "green" cities.

The explanation of the science is clear and understandable for such a complex topic. There was a good mix of DARPA scientists and Mitchell, on of the amputees that are testing the new technology.

This article is a good example of a journalist pointing out sometimes absurd journalistic tendencies, such as the trend to exaggerate the severity of a story through extensive coverage. There was quite a bit of references to what other people were saying about swine flu and its coverage. Kurtz maintained a sense of balance by mentioning more than once that swine flu could potentially be a danger, but emphasized the over-the-top coverage of what could possibly be just another strain of the flu.

The article is concise and well-written -- very clear. All of the sources had generally the same opinion: Twitter is being used pretty well, but there is a definite element of hysteria in the open conversation that spawned. The journalist could have sought out people with varying opinions.

Though the lack of author citation puts this article's reliability into question (GreenProgress works as an organization and does not credit individual authors), the article is an interesting report on a new approach to technology in the energy field. The article could be made better if the theoretical implications of the addition of hydrogen creation in power plants (according to experts) were included.

The engagement of the readers' opinions and "green tips" are a good addition to the article itself which doesn't go in depth enough. By inviting and then moderating comments, viewpoints from more than one side and even extreme viewpoints are presented and then discussed. The article has quality because it incites active readership as a starting point.

Not having heard of the Toronto Star before reading this article, I can not vouch for its credibility. So when the author seems biased against the laser-based fusion attempts by the US and other nations in favor of the speculative Canadian fusion attempt, I am uneasy. However, his description of the fusion generator is clear and understandable. He also includes quite a bit about the policies that are helping (money donations) and hindering (lack of infrastructure) the progression of scientific exploration into alternative energies. While the author makes it seem like fusion has always been considered feasible (if unexplored effectively), that isn't actually the case. It has been dismissed more than embraced, because of its ... More »

Though the author of this article is a current unknown graduate student posting through a relatively private journal, the article is well-written and explains convergent evolution well. The bias of the author in the "evolution debate" is evident, though that is to be expected with members of the scientific community, rather than journalists separate from it. The links are not the most comprehensive, but the author's explanation seems to convey that he grasps the concepts and explains them clearly without obviously trying to avoid technical terms.

The reporter doesn't just talk about the new study, but interviews one of the scientists who participated in the study. He asked relevant questions and put it in an understandable and coherent order and format.

Not a very in-depth look at the issue behind the court's decision nor why it is so important (difference between two administrations' policies). But a concise report of the ruling.

The story tells very little about the science of corals, beyond some basic facts that many people would already know. They only showed one man in the ecotourism industry. This video could be better.

The tone is generally objective and the topic is relevant and pretty well-researched. There could be a bit more information from people against solar panel installation.

The issue seems to be covered well and most, if not all, of the details are included. Though many links are internal (referencing other MIT articles), there are quite a few that link to the original words of the person or organization they are citing.

The language is accessible. The topic is interesting; people rarely think about how science as a mix of fields evolves. The connection between the study of science and networks is very current thinking. However, the author is unknown (who is arXiv?) and the report does not delve far enough into the topic. The accompanying image is very explanatory.

The writing was a bit dry, but overall the article was informative and the topic was interesting and well-chosen.

The explanation is in plain words and comprehensible and there were a lot of references and links to find more information, which did go more in depth.

This is a decent article, but needs to be in a different section. This article is about policy and not science.