This is a story about Kweisi Mfume, but he's not personally involved in the story. There is no interview with him present. This story is based off of someone else talking about rumors involving him.

I think this is good journalism because it thoroughly all of the important bases. Well, all except one. What about the people? I saw a lot of government sources, but I didn't see any quotes from anyone directly affected by this issue. That should be the focus of it. What are these people going to do now? Are they going to keep living in these houses? How will they deal with the lead in their homes? What about their children?

The reporter's approach to the story is warranted. He saw that there were problems in the way that Baltimore is conducting the clean up of the harbor. In this article, he offers three good examples of harbor cleanups in Virginia, Boston and Washington, which have all proved to be successful. In that respect, I did think that the subject was well researched and offered a lot of information. I also thought the subject had been investigated well.

I like that this article gives both sides of the story and that the writer's voice or opinion is in no way stated in this piece. It gets straight to the issue. I think enough information was given on the topic for everyone reading to understand and follow what is going on. There are a lot of citizen quotes, but only one from a government official and none from experts on the matter.

The beginning of this article is very effective as an opener. It shows a real story, someone directly affected by the subject of the article. After that introduction, background and further information was properly given. It was well researched and insightful with the right amount of quotes to bring the story along.

There was only one source in this article. I suppose because it's a story from abc2 news, it works in length and vagueness, but as a print story it wouldn't work. Not much of a story is given. There were more sources out for the reporter to get. I would've like some more background information about the cause and the event itself.

The story's intro was compelling to keep me reading and interested in the topic. A lot of research went into this topic as well as a lot of great sources that brought life to the story. There is no stone unturned and I was able to learn a lot about what's being done and not being done about the pollution of the Inner Harbor.

The story lacked an actual story. Yes, it talks about a new organization and the plans discussed to cleanup the Inner Harbor, but there is no background. I know nothing about the organization and that is key to this story. It should be explained for those who don't know. A little history should be given on past groups and why this new group was needed. That way a reader would be able to take something from the article.

This article lacked in expert sources. Only government sources have been cited. There aren't any quotes from citizens directly affected by the issue either. The article gives a short background into the situation, but a little more could be added.

I think this article hit every point that would make it a good article accept getting more opinions of those in attendance of the conference. Yes, there were a lot of expert and government sources, but only one source comes from a citizen, which happens to be a ten year old. One quote from someone who is not a community leader, or have some type of disagreement with what was said at the conference would help. I also would like to learn more about any past efforts since the last conference and if any progress has been made. I felt that there was not enough investigation into the subject. It only showed hope, which is nice, but will it affect Baltimore positively or negatively.

I don't believe this is good journalism because this article didn't have credible sources. In fact, this article only has two quotes from two different people, but neither quotes helps give context to the story. There was no investigation into the topic either and didn't show both sides to this particular story. If two sides were given, it wasn't clearly stated. The headline is misleading. There is no background information given or more information added.