While there isn't much new information, this story puts together what seems to be all relevant information that could impact the teacher's contract fight in DC. The Post succeeds in summarizing a complicated issue - it doesn't oversimplify, but it makes the facts accessible and understandable.

This article does a really good job combining historic trends with what is happening now. Also, the reasons why envangelical churches are growing faster than other denominations - that they're more flexible, for example - are reasonable and well sourced.

It takes a long time (more than five grafs) until the author introduces any of these critics. For most of the article, they're referred to abstractly. Many government officials mentioned are referred to as "senior Justice Department officials" - or some variation of that - rather than using actual names.

The article says who has donated to President Clinton, but doesn't go into what sort of impanct thoses interestes could have on Mrs. Clinton's job as Secretary of State.

The line that said Warren didn't comment for this story should have probably been higher up, before he was criticized a number of times in the story. There are also a lot of quotes saying Warren was an inappropriate choice, but very little from any source as to why Obama chose Warren.

I think the author spends too much time talking about a few people he knows who use Facebook, and could be mistaking that for real data. I think the author also errs by making overly broad statements, like that Web 2.0 sites cannot maintain thei focus. Instead, a bigger issue may be that Web 2.0 isn't what people expected it to be, and this author is holding sites like Facebook and Flickr to the standards set a few years ago of what social networking sits could be. By focusing on ... More »

Not only does this story explain a new discovery by scientists, it explains how they were able to determine so much just by observing the planet through a telescope.

This story reads like a summary of a press release or report, with a little extra legwork by the reporter to contact those involved and show some historical context. But the majority of the article comes from the report, not from independent reporting.

It would have been informative to get more input from the Obama camp, but given that the only quote comes from an e-mail, it seems that the Office of the President Elect didn't want to comment on this story. It is good journalism to look at how there is probably too much information, and that Obama and top aides will probably get nothing more than a report on what the website shows.

This article gives good detail into the views of supporters of a "Green New Deal," but doesn't show views of opponents and people who consider a plan like this to be impractical. The article talks about industry, but doesn't speak to industry leaders; likewise, it speaks about the economy, but doesn't speak to economists.

The lede does a good job to, right off the bat, show that popular perceptions about happiness are not accurate. The reporter uses a lot of sources to back up that thesis.

There's a lot of information about the new communications team, but it all comes from a statement from Obama, making it read too much like a press release.

I understand that Parry has personal knowledge of the subject, but there is just very little attribution, or even linking to backup information. The story covers very interesting and important information, but doesn't back much of it up.

Using breakfast to show the importance of bees is a clever way to explain how relevant bee activity is to human life. One complaint is the use of the phrase "Scientists think" to cite data - no information is cited to specific researchers at any point in this article.

While so many reporters seem to try to get to the bottom of how far the economy will fall, Time's Justin Fox looks instead at how forecasters come up with their numbers. I'm not sure that's where he intended the story to go, because it isn't the only thing covered and the lede promises to try predict how far and how fast the economy will fall, but I was happy to see it look at predictors, not just predictions.

This article offers a good look into the perils that come with melding government with politics. A good use of a variety of sources, with just not identified by name, moves the story from a gossipy Washington trend story to a smart look at what our nation's capital might look like for the next 4 to 8 years.

The article starts as a collection of anecdotes from parents, but takes off when it cites history, research and studies, and the white authors get insight from the black community.

An interesting look at how bureaucracy can be a hindrance to ideology. Though the issues the seminary faced were specific to them, it showed how government gridlock can thwart even the best of intentions. The story did a good job examining how New York calls for innovation, but at the same time creates major hurdles. It would have been nice to see comment from NYC authorities, but given how difficult it was for them to get their act together, it might have been impossible.

This blog post takes a topic everyone seems to be covering - the economic problems facing newspapers - and says pretty much nothing about it. There aren't experts, facts, or links to back up the authors opinions, and there isn't much new information. It's a newsworthy topic, and readers would benefit from new reporting.

John Dickerson shows how Obama's reported choice of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State plays into the concept of a "team of rivals," but breaks down how similar Obama and Clinton are on the issues they're set to collaborate on.

By not just comparing the current economic crisis to the Great Depression, but by looking at history over the last decade, this article gives more thoughtful consideration to what might be ahead of the nation.

There's certainly plenty of information, but is it too much? Is this really news, and should the AP's Washington bureau have devoted so much time to covering this story?

It is interesting to note that while MBTA officials confirmed that two employees tested positive for drug and/or alcohol use, those sources do not give specifics. Instead, an unnamed source said one employee was using cocaine and the information on the blood alcohol content of the other employee is not attributed to anyone.

Context is key in covering the global financial crisis, because there are so many moving parts. This story starts to get at that, showing how economic problems in the US are affecting markets around the world, especially by examining the plights of American auto companies.

It would have been nice to see new regulations put into context: what does this mean for the country and why are these policies being made at the last minute, largely out of the public eye. And with no original reporting, this feels more like a news summary than a news report.

At a time when so people understand exactly what is happening in the financial markets, it is refreshing to see someone connect a few dots. This story did a good job at showing how interconnected the economy is, and how one aspect directly impacts others. A wide variety of sources helped prove this point.

I'm glad to see Engber got Parker-Pope on the line and got her to acknowledge she'd erred in following a press release too closely, which is something media critics often fail to do. I also appreciated that Engber made the science as equal an issue as the journalism. Also, the use of links to back up arguments was very effective, and didn't crowd the story with too much unnecessary attribution.

This story benefits from showing a direct result of the economic crisis and shows how the government bailout is relevant to consumers and the auto industry. Also, it was a good use of photos and visuals to tell a story.

This article gives a lot of information, but very little of it comes from named sources. There also isn't much new information beyond speculation as to why Senator Clinton might not take a job in Obama's cabinet.

I think this article is quality journalism because it takes information that is not readily available and exposes it. However, it was hard for me to understand why these institutions charged more, and why it was such a bad thing that hospitals with much more resources charged more money. Additionally, the report sometimes made claims about costs, but didn't immediately back them up or attribute them.