The story in the Star Tribune on the man who was hit by a train in St. Paul uses a bare minimum structure that puts out the facts but little more.
The story starts with a short and succint lead that says who, what, where, and when. The man remains unidentified by police, so his name is also left out of the second graph.
The second graphy moves on to paraphrase the St. Paul police statement, the only source used in the story. It tells where the body was found, when, and by who, which adds more detail to the lead that he was found.
The next most important part, who the man is, is discussed next. The writer explains as much as he can about the man, and tells the reader why he is not identified.
It then uses a quote from police. The last graph seems to end the story awkwardly. I believe one way the story could be changed would be to switch the last to paragraphs in order to end with a "kicker quote."