This is the best available coverage of an issue that has been overlooked by the mainstream media.

This article covers the issue very concisely and fairly, and gives the reader a very good idea of the relevant international situation without waffling or confusing the reader with unneeded text.

This article seems to be biased very slightly in favour of the editors of the Italian Wikipedia, and does not show any opposing opinions. However, the story is still of a very high standard, and perhaps among the best coverage of this story available.

This is a good example of community-written journalism,

The article is fair and reasonably balanced, and seems to be very well written. I can find very few flaws.

I do not know of this publication, but this article does not fill me with praise. It is heavily biased, but - on the good side - it does offer a new perspective on what I previously thought of as a non-issue.

It is rather feature-like, written more in the style of a story than a news report, and this gives the article - which would otherwise be little more than a dumping ground for statistics - more character. It is slightly opinionated and biased, but it does make an effort to consider both sides of the argument, and backs up its claims with statistics. Despite a small scattering of spelling and grammar mistakes, the article is generally very well-written, although a reduction of the statistic overload would make the article more gripping and less bloated (I can remember very few of the statistics because of how they were all bunched together).

Despite minor inaccuracies (see quotes), the article is well-written and informative.

The article is too brief to be of much use, and it has to be remembered that VoA is basically the US government's propaganda outlet. All this article serves to do is highlight the Republican Party's opposition to eco-laws. One is forced to wonder whether this is little more than an attempt by Obama's Democrats to secure more votes in three years' time from the more environmentally-conscious voting quorum.

As an interview and opinion piece, this is rather good. The questions may be somewhat dry on occasion, and often leading, but the viewpoint that is expressed is expressed in great and insightful detail. The inclusion of additional viewpoints (possibly with a second interviewee, acting as a debate) would improve the article, and an opinion could still be expressed in the conclusion.

The article seems very biased, promoting a single viewpoint above all others, is based, it appears, on a single source, and is from a source that I, for one, have never heard of, and that appears to be a personal blog. The opinions are presented too subtly for this to qualify as a decent opinion piece, yet the bias is too rampant for it to qualify as a reliable news story. I am unable to find a single direct quote in the article, and it seems that this blog—which attempts to pass itself off as a place for "informed comment"—is simply a place for a single man to push his own point of view and promote his book.