The reporter who wrote the Associated Press article about a helicopter crash summarizes the important elements in the lead by stating that the helicopter crashed, with a child on board, and that three people died, with the possibility of more victims. He/She also gives the day it occurred on and that it happened north of Phoenix. He orders the story by starting with a description of the event from a witnesses point of view, followed by a quote from the witness. He/She then describes the aftermath of the crash and ends with details about the owner of the helicopter and the investigation of the crash. I find it was done effectively, because it lists all of the facts in order of importance to the reader, although I think the first quote could have been paraphrased, but that is more of a personal preference since I don't care for quotes in stories.
Recently in Analysis Category
In the Star Tribune article about a car that had started on fire contained only one real source, which was the woman driving the vehicle, Kathey Rich, whom they must have interviewed after the incident. They never overtly attribute any facts to her or anyone else, they just used direct and indirect quotes from her. Attributions are scattered throughout the article in the form of quotes from Rich. The information is directly from people, Kathy Rich. The attribution is not really set up, quotes are just taken from Rich. I find that it is somewhat effective in that it was easily assumed that the quotes come from an interview with Rich and a reporter. But it is confusing because they never say that they spoke to the woman themselves, so it could be the case that someone else did the interviews, but they would have had to attribute the interviewer, but they did not, so I assumed that they interviewed her themselves.
In a story by CNN, the lead describes the who, what, where, and how of the story of a woman who fell and tore a work of art by Picasso at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York.
The who is a woman visiting the Metropolitan Museum of Art in Manhattan. The what is the Picasso painting known as "The Actor" being repaired, which is mentioned by name and also referenced as a Picasso painting, not just any painting. The how/why is because a woman fell on it and tore it. Lastly, the where is mentioned as the Metropolitan Museum of Art, with the dateline indicating the information was gathered in New York.
I must assume that the reason why the sentence begins with the mentioning that the painting is undergoing repair is to make the reader wonder how it got ripped so that one is motivated to read on past the first comma in the sentence. Since the article falls into the category of soft news, the author had more freedom of how to write the lead and likely chose to write it as he/she did in order to emphasize the fact that it was a significant piece of art work. This was done by mentioning that the work was by Picasso and naming it makes it sound like it is a more notable work of his rather than just any lesser painting of his.