A detailed explanation of what's happened with the legislation and the reactions of all sides on the issue.

A very thorough report on the last day of debate on the Same Sex Marriage bill, and the history of the bill to date. By getting quotes from politicians and advocates on both sides of the bill, and in varying degrees of support and opposition, Bykowicz give us a real understanding of the challenges we face as a state.

Solid journalism. The story was hard news and was about as impartial as possible. The story was clear and easy to read, although a bit wordy with all the quotes that were squeezed in. However, even with all the quotes they were still used in context of the story and gave me both sides of the issue of same-sex legisation issues in Maryland. The story was also relevant to me, a Maryland native, and also provided insight into House meetings. All in all, a good piece.

engaging, you didnt lose my attention, there were some parts that got a little confusing but nothing too drastic

I liked this story because it clearly is timely and the issue of legalizing gay marriage is becoming more and more relevant. This is good journalism because it gives imformation with depth and includes many resources- on both sides of the issue. That is key (getting each side) when reporting on controversies, especially in politics.

The article has a large amount of sources and does a good job of avoiding personal bias. The lead could have been a little bit less confusing, but the next paragraph makes it more clear. Some aspects could be sourced better because the writer says that some leaders said something rather than giving an exact name. There are quotes from both sides of the issue. Paragraphs are short and concise.

I really felt that this story was good journalism. It was well written, well sourced, and very relevant. You could tell that the journalist did their best to be fair and understand both sides, although you can taste a twinge of bias in there. I felt throughout the article that the journalist was definitely for gay marriage.

This article shows good journalism. The interviews included in this article are resourceful because they come from those with political powers that are involved with the vote. The article also discusses each side of the debate in-depth. This is shown with interviews from supporters of same-sex marriage, Ruth Siegel and individuals who are against like Pastor Joel Peebles.

The interviews included in this article are very respectable and resourceful coming from direct political powers involved in the decision on what to do with this new bill on same-sex marriage in Maryland. This article also represents both sides of the debate very well, interviewing both supporters of same-sex marriage such as Ruth Siegel and those who aren't all for it, such as Pastor Joel Peebles.

Yes, I do believe the author of the story provides a good understanding of where he get's his information and he even includes an interview with a supporter of gay marriage, which is good feedback to provide.

A very complete synopsis of this issue and the process.