The story itself is interesting, but the reporting is not great. Too much emphasis on the reaction of locals, and not enough named sources for the basic facts.

Interesting - the key source is anonymous, but there is an audio clip with his voice. The timing of this story, just ahead of an IEA release, prevents the IEA from commenting just yet. CERA would have been a good viewpoint to add.

Plenty of facts, but it's not easy to associate them with sources.

A little more nuanced than most FactCheck articles, but with the usual source links and neutrality.

I don't see how a story about the relative quantities of two competing factors can be told with almost no numbers. This is an important story, and it really needs more depth.

Fairly well researched investigations into corners of healthcare that need to be discussed today, but mostly aren't.

Although informative, this has a few areas of poor evidence, sourcing, and explanation. Other parts are quite good, and it tells a good story overall.

Plenty of viewpoints here, nice job on that. The graphic is good, but it does not precisely identify which BLS data it is using.

This lays out the story fairly and accessibly, seeming to have no agenda.

A followup to some great investigative journalism. This story surprisingly falls a little short on context, failing to explain some things that many people will not know about GEMS. The suggestion to read the report seems odd in a news article, but it may be hinting at future stories.

Not bad, this has links to sources to back up most claims, except for the "swing vote" status of the named senators.

This story is loaded with evidence and sources, and provides links to tons of information. Unfortunately the opposing view is represented with only one short sentence and a link; quite unfair.

This seems to come 90% from a press release or press event. The additional viewpoints are slim, although they have links. It does a good job, however, of explaining the important economy of scale issues related to this field.

Plenty of info, and it touches on some key issues. But it barely addresses how the other countries address those issues. Well linked to sources.

Not enough sources. The Greenpeace viewpoint is a bit weak, leaving only the two partner companies. The author does fill in with a little bit of a critical view. There is enough information, although I always wonder why biofuel stories never say what the produced fuel actually is.

Not the exhaustive treatment we usually see from Zetter. This story has more questions than facts, and some of the facts are not well backed up. The questions are good ones, and I hope some answers will be forthcoming.

On one hand this seems to take the Palestinian side. But it asks reasonable questions that the Israelis should consider, and is ultimately more practical than biased.

Commentary on a video expose revealing the deceptive practices of strictly pro-life pregnancy counseling centers. The first person stories and pro-choice expert opinions are good, but there is no opposing viewpoint at all. Also it would have been good to have more evidence, at least a photo of one of these places.

A reasonable roundup of facts from other reports, but short on source identification.

All factual and accurate, backed up with 9 source links. Apart from the links, however, Andrew Appel is the only source named. The story is well explained.

Plenty of facts from good sources, although the source study is not linked or even identified. Woolhandler's background as an advocate of universal healthcare is revealed, and a balancing viewpoint is given some, but maybe not enough space.

The approach of using factual sources instead of opinions is quite good for this story. While it uses direct quotes liberally, I think a few representations should also have been direct quotes, since exact words make a difference here.

Although the graphic helps to explain a little about the technology, this story presents minimal information. The single interviewee was asked only 2 questions.

Only half of the story is about nuclear power, and the back-and-forth on that topic ends a little early. The remainder is fairly balanced political discussion.

This story uses good charts to assert a point, but relegates the balancing viewpoint to one paragraph at the end.

Interesting to read, but I like facts backed up by more numbers and less prose. Not very many viewpoints are represented, either.

This needs more evidence to back up the claims made, and more viewpoints. The subject is very interesting, however.