This story is not formatted like a typical hard news story. There is no direct lede that describes the "news". Rather, what should be the lede comes in the second paragraph.

Also, there is very little sourcing. The first official name that is mentioned and quoted isn't until the fourth paragraph. The story seems more like an editorial or a drawn out feature...but then again, this is the New York Times.

My last critique is of the content. I think there are two stories here: one about the law change and the other about granting illegal immigrants driver's licenses. They are both very newsworthy, but when condensed into one larger story, they lose impact.

This story is a recap of major international news that happened one year ago. I imagine it must have been hard to write a story on the single biggest triumph for America in the last decade, but the writer did not fall short.

The story has a strong dramatic tone that compliments the content very well. It also creates a thorough picture of the United States after learning of Bin Laden's death. These elements take the writing beyond a hard news story.

My one negative critique is the length of the story. A story this long would be appropriate if the news just happened. As an anniversary piece, I think it is a little lengthy. However, the writer did a nice job of adding new information to avoid a mere carbon copy of a previous story.

First, I must ask "is this really newsworthy?" After reading the story, I found that it didn't really have any substance. Nobody was hurt, no arrests, and nothing really that exciting. There was a drunk woman at a poetry slam. That's it. We don't even have a name.

However, I feel like the writer did as much as they could with this story. They got a word from the University police, as well as some quotes from the President of Voices Merging.

If I had written this story, well, I would have found a better story to write about.

This story was written with the sentimentality of an obituary, but was presented as a typical news story. The reporter used a multitude of quotes from various sources that knew or worked with Tinsley before he died. Consequently, Tinsley comes off as a very respected and loved member of the University community.

The typical inverted pyramid is disregarded here. Since the story is mostly quotes about the same person, order of importance isn't really that effective. The story needs to maintain heartfelt and honest, rather than structured and technical.

I thought this story was very well done. If I had written it, I would have swapped the last paragraph with the two above it. It seems more appropriate to close with the following:

"As the sun set, the vigil ended in prayer. Many left and went their separate ways, but the University's football team stayed behind and showed their support with a team huddle.

They chanted a single word, "family.""

Although the headline of this story is appropriate, it is way too long. The subhead, which is a full sentence, is nearly the same length as the headline. I would save the wordy headlines for the wordier stories.

The story itself seems very dry. It would be nice to get a word from a coach, concessions employee, or even a random student. This is big news for football fans and everyone who plays a role on football Saturdays.

On the positive side, the writer did organize the information very well. The important facts are at the top and the less important rest at the bottom. It all has a nice flow, though it would be more engaging if it had more quotes.

If I were writing this story, I would avoid writing a boring update on legislature action. Instead, I would interview a variety of sources and write in some responses to this bill.

The Minnesota Daily was the first local news source to report on the man who jumped off the 35W bridge on Tuesday.

Unfortunately, there was a very obvious mistake in the article that was published the following morning. One sentence stated that the man was confirmed dead at the scene, but the following sentence refuted this by stating "Police are still searching for his body".

It is possible that the writers got different answers from different sources and never linked the contradiction. This kind of mistake was not only contradictory, but also careless. It didn't matter that the Daily reported first; the story lost credibility with this very prominent error.

The story was reported based on information from the Minneapolis police and the Hennepin County Sheriff's Office, as well as some eye witnesses that were at the scene.
At the end of of the story, the writers try to establish a trend by stating this was the second bridge-jumping incident in the past week. This was an important and newsworthy fact that should have been placed higher up in the story.

If I had covered this story, I would have sought direct quotes from the Hennepin County Sheriff's Office. The fact that this incident was the second of its kind in a week should have shaped the lede.