This is an interesting resurgence of tensions between Ireland and Britain. Ireland's Catholic roots once again clash against the Protestant and secular British government. It's particularly notable that the lawyers representing Ireland are from the "Association of Catholic Lawyers". The article is well written, but it lacks the Strasbourg/British side, it just quotes the Irish lawyers.
A good article, although it is vague on what exactly it is that the Swiss did. Other than that, well sourced, clearly written, and all that. I'm happy that they mentioned the Belarus problem, because no one likes Belarus.
Although the actual events that happened were questionable, this is a decent article. It has plenty of sources and interviews, a sprinkling of statistics, and decent writing. There was minimal editorializing, and the article seemed to be made up of mostly facts.
I found this news article absolutely chilling. The descriptions of Greece's halted economy, the lack of development, compounded by Greece's former dictator saying the people of Greece required a tyranny to be economically frugal, made Greece sound like something out of Road Warrior. The article was well sourced, as well, and contained plenty of relevant interviews.
I'm interested in knowing how events like this will affect the Micronesia's close cultural ties to the sea. Will pressure to keep tourists and the such safe impose regulations on how regular Micronesians are allowed to interact with the ocean.
Although it's an interesting article on a relatively unmentioned source of global warming, this story does tend to only give the farmer's side of the matter. Little to nothing was quoted from the officials and (presumably) scientists vying for the changes proposed in the beginning of the article. Otherwise, it described the infrastructure needed to support the planned changes, as well as the detrimental effects it would have on farmers, very clearly.
I'll be frank; I don't follow news on economics much. It follows, then, that I have a very limited understanding of how the economy works, but this article managed to convey what it wanted to say without having to resort to esoteric terms and acronyms, and I came away with a fairly good understanding of what happened. There were a couple of jabs at past administrations that weren't supported (at least in the article itself), but for the most part it stayed matter-of-fact and did not just act as a conduit for blame.
The story has sources, presumably, although it doesn't mention exactly what they are, just general references to research centers. It also seems to be biased, making claims as if they are obvious without backing them up. Otherwise, it's a good article.
It's a good article giving a simple overview of what's in the bill. It tends to use weasel words, but not to the point where it becomes detrimental to the article.
This is a pretty good story, but it could have done more to get China's side since most of the quote blurbs seemed to come from the Brazilian population. More sources would have been nice, since there was a lot of quotes but little in the way of facts. An overall above average story.
A very fact based article, although a lot of the sources are not named directly and ia vague description is given of where the information came from. Otherwise a very good story that presents a quick overview of what has happened in Chile since the earthquake.
A well sourced story that doesn't have an obvious bias. The writing is a bit dense, but other than that, it is well worth the read.
This is a fairly well written article. It had several sources and a couple of interviews with experts (supposedly). The article didn't really give China's perspective very much, but most other affected parties were described well.
The article only used one source, from the BBC, which seemed rather tacked on, and interviewed one local pastor. No engineers were consulted nor was the Chinese/Burmese side ever interviewed. There was no mention of whether the villagers were being reimbursed or not. The writing is weak and often took irrelevant tangents that seemed to be there just for the sake of criticizing China and Burma. While these criticisms may be valid, they are neither sourced nor supported, making the whole article sound extremely biased.
