In this story from the LA Times about a Duke fraternity that has been suspended for throwing a racist Asian-themed party uses a variety of sources, including students, school administrators, Duke's school newspaper, the fraternity's chapter president, national director, and the email invite that started the whole ordeal.
The sources are spread about the story, which allows the it to flow well while still allowing each side involved to tell their side. While most of the sources are actual people, the parts of this story quoted from the email invitation serve as the most effective, detailing the racist comments made by the fraternity and allowing the reader to understand the gravity of the situation.
The reporter who wrote the story attributed each part of the story effectively. For example, a quote from the fraternity's president originally ran in Duke's student paper was attributed to both the president and the paper. Specific facts about the fraternity's history that wouldn't be considered common knowledge are attributed properly as well.
Overall, the attribution in this story does a good job of expressing who was involved, and why their opinion matters. The reporter also did a good job at including a variety of sources, and providing equal each side involved with fair and balanced coverage.