There were only two sources, both of which were involved in the initiative. Most information was taken from the initiative's report. There was no contextual information, and very little work done on the reporter's part.

The articles written a year from now about the UN's Green Economy Initiative will be much more worthwhile, because there will be a story to write. Mr. Lean does a passable job re-hashing the UN's press release on the project, but this article contains few concrete details about the project, and does not acknowledge any possible difficulties a non-governmental organization may have implementing a global version of the New Deal.

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.

Most of the content of the story was written without giving the reader the full context of where the facts were coming from. There were only two people quoted in the entire article, and they both were pro-'green new deal.' We wished there were an opposing view on the subject mentioned in the article, to give full credibility to the story. The story touches upon an important topic, but lacks thorough reporting.

It's hard to understand the source of data and projections voiced in this piece. The analysis of the new initiative is just more like cheerleading. Need more outisde sources.