On Attribution
In the Star Tribune's Feb. 8 article U's tuition expected to surpass 10-grand, there appear to be six sources that come into play.
The first one seems to be the reporter, assuming that he did, in fact, attend University President Robert Bruininks's presentation Friday to the Board of Regents. The second and third sources are Anthony West and David Holt, two biomedical engineering students from somewhere on campus. The fourth is written as "University officials," but the quote directly below attributes only one person, Regent Anthony Baraga. I'm not sure if this is two sources or one. The last source is Bruininks himself, although I'm not sure whether or not he said these things in the presentation or in a separate interview.
The sources are scattered throughout the article, with characters disappearing and appearing again (Bruininks, West). It appears that the reporter is perhaps treating Bruininks's presentation differently from his direct quotes, since they are so split up (at the opposite ends of the article) and because they seem to have almost a different attitude.
Most or all of the information seems to come directly from people, as no documents are listed. I'm not sure whether or not a "presentation" is a source directly from the person speaking or from the institution they are speaking on behalf of.
Overall, the distribution of sources is pretty effective but doesn't make one hundred percent sense. The tuition hike is a relatively complex issue so the quotes and explanations make sense in the order they're in, for the reader's sake of understanding the issue. But the fact the "University officials largely attribute" is not really attributed to anyone and also the that Bruininks appears several times in different roles split up over the whole article making it seem slightly jumbled.