Stealing newspapers from a college is kind of a “raw-deal”. There should have been better ways of expression frustration. However, the article was informative, especially since I am a Towson student. It was well written, but there was one section that stated that an incident like this has happened before, unless the editor was being cautious of space, I do think that he could have added a small excerpt of the previous case in which the newspapers were stolen, just to give a bit of history. The use of quotes and dates were well used, and also telling the normal amount of newspaper circulation was a good addition, since it lets readers know how many papers were stolen.

This article provides a lot of informative details, but leaves out some key ones, most notably the law that Daniel Gross believes the perpetrators are violating. Because of the absence of the law and/or its interpretation, readers can easily be confused as to why it's possible to steal a free paper. It also is a bit questionable that this article is being written three weeks after the fact, but did a good job updating the progress of the investigation (or lack thereof).