The reporter of this article used a few sources, though I felt as if there could have been more attribution. The reporter attributes the officer that the story is about, the executive director for the Minnesota chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, St. Paul Police Chief Thomas Smith, and it touches on reflection of the officer's record with the police force.
The sources are spread out well as the reader isn't struck with a bunch of them in any one place. That being said, it felt as if they might have been stretched out too far--some of the writing in between felt researched but unsourced. Most of the attributions are set up with the style of: the source, why the source is credible, and what the source said. This isn't the case for the officer himself, as it's implied that he is credible because he's speaking.
The attribution is somewhat effective. Perhaps the reporter was familiar with the story so they felt that attribution wasn't completely necessary, but there were parts (i.e. where did he issue the apology?) left out that rendered me to wonder where the reporter got their information.