Kara3_medium

Kara Duffy

Member (since February 2011)
Help

About Kara Help
Last Visit: Dec 22, 2011 - 4:22 PM PST
Last Edit: Dec 22, 2011 - 4:22 PM PST

This profile can be seen by everyone, including search engines. Help
| Network |

Activity

Show all | Reviews | Posts | Starred | Comments
Kara reviewed this story - Apr 26, 2011
Kara's Rating
2.1

This story kind of confused me. It seemed to jump around and the fact that it didnt include any real credible or balanced sources made it even harder to follow. I would have liked to see Mfume comment on the subject.

See Full Review » (19 answers)
NT Rating: 2.5 | See All NT Reviews »
Kara reviewed this story - Feb 14, 2011
Kara's Rating
3.7

With obesity being one of America's major problems in society, I think this article is effective at stressing some of the minor changes that could be impleted to help with the larger problem. It is obvious that the writer did their research on many cities in order to inform the reader on a larger scale, as opposed to just a local level. However, I think the story would have been more effective if the writer added more links throughout the article. Overall, good use of credible sources and very informative.

See Full Review » (18 answers)
NT Rating: 3.8 | See All NT Reviews »
Kara reviewed this story - Feb 14, 2011
Kara's Rating
3.7

I think using video and pictures to tell this story added to the quality of journalism. However, I would have liked to see more sources cited from opposing viewpoints. Overall, I think the journalism was effective especially because it incorportated hard facts and data.

See Full Review » (19 answers)
NT Rating: 3.5 | See All NT Reviews »
Kara reviewed this story - Feb 14, 2011
Kara's Rating
3.2

I think this article gives hope for the future of vacant homes. I think the journalism would have been more effective if the writer added more links so the reader could have learned more about all the organizations that they spoke of.

See Full Review » (19 answers)
NT Rating: 3.4 | See All NT Reviews »
Kara posted and reviewed this story - Feb 14, 2011
Kara's Rating
3.4

I think the writer should have added links to this article. I think it would have added more credibility to the story. I thought the context of the article was interesting because it explored a different side of the Chesapeake Bay restoration plans, one which questioned the financial aspect of the restoration process. By using people directly affected by these plans added a more "human" connection to the issue at hand.

See Full Review » (18 answers)
NT Rating: 3.4 | See All NT Reviews »
Kara posted and reviewed this story - Feb 14, 2011
Kara's Rating
3.3

I think this article is a good example of quality as opposed to quanity. Although the article is rather short, I think it includes a good bit of information and is constructed nicely. Credible sources are cited and fresh information about the new conerns being raised by environmentalists is reported.

See Full Review » (18 answers)
NT Rating: 3.3 | See All NT Reviews »
Kara posted and reviewed this story - Feb 14, 2011
Kara's Rating
4.1

I really enjoyed this article. I think the writer did a good job at citing appropriate and credible sources. I thought the article was well-balanced. It was hopeful, yet hesitant about the changes to come. It was optimistic, yet also realistic. I found it interesting that the writer also included questions about how these efforts will effect the econmy. Overall, I think this article was a good example of journalism.

See Full Review » (18 answers)
NT Rating: 4.1 | See All NT Reviews »
Kara posted and reviewed this story - Feb 14, 2011
Kara's Rating
3.2

There are certain things that I like about this article and there are other things that I think could use improvement. I thought the context of the article was important because if indeed this "runoff forecaster" tool is created, it could really be beneficial to helping restore the Chesapeake Bay. However, I think the journalism would have been much more effective had the writer cite credible sources to back up the information that they were reporting on.

See Full Review » (18 answers)
NT Rating: 3.2 | See All NT Reviews »
Kara posted and reviewed this story - Feb 14, 2011
Kara's Rating
3.8

Although this article is rather old (published in 2005) I think it offers a lot of useful information based on data that was tracked for hundreds of years. I also think the story does an efficient job at explaining the issue of nutrient pollution that WAS and still IS going on in our Chesapeake Bay.

See Full Review » (18 answers)
NT Rating: 3.8 | See All NT Reviews »
Kara posted this story - Feb 14, 2011
Kara posted and reviewed this story - Feb 12, 2011
Kara posted and reviewed this story - Feb 12, 2011
Kara posted and reviewed this story - Feb 12, 2011
Kara posted and reviewed this story - Feb 10, 2011
Kara posted and reviewed this story - Feb 10, 2011
Kara reviewed this story - Feb 8, 2011
Kara's Rating
3.1

I think this journalism would have been more effective if the writer would have included more factual information. Although there were a lot of sources and quotes that discuss Dr. Alonso's strong views, they seemed to be broad and did not add much credibility to the story. I would have liked to see more statistics to back up the changes that were made in the school systems.

See Full Review » (19 answers)
NT Rating: 3.7 | See All NT Reviews »
Kara reviewed this story - Feb 8, 2011
Kara's Rating
2.0

I think the journalism would have been more effective if the writer used more credible sources. I do not think that islanders who post to newspaper websites anonymously should be considered credible or accurate sources. I also think the journalism could improve if the writer incorporated an Obama source to get the President's opinion on the topic in order to enhance credibility and fairness. I would have liked to see the story supported with more factual information.

See Full Review » (11 answers)
NT Rating: 2.3 | See All NT Reviews »
Certified_student_reviewer
(Beta)

Levels & Stats

Member LevelHelp
2.9 avg.
2.9 avg.
Activity
3.3 avg.
Experience
1.0 avg.
Ratings
4.5 avg.
Transparency
1.3 avg.
Validation
3.0 avg.

StatsHelp
Reviews
11
Answers
184
Comments
0
Ratings Received
7
Number of Raters
4
Ratings Given
0