In the Associated Press article "Skydiver survives 24-mile high jump, breaks sound barrier, officials say," the writer uses three sources to describe the moments before, during, and after the jump.
The sources are scattered in the beginning and in the end, while the middle describes the writers experience at the event. The bulk of the sources in the beginning give statistics and facts about the record-breaking sky dive. This is effective because it is a scientific news article and facts help tell the story in this case.
The information is from specialists and those directly involved in the jump. The specialist reports the facts while the other sources tell the emotional side to the story. It gives the article emotional appeal and logical appeal.
The attributions are done properly in this story by thoroughly describing each person. I would say that I would've liked to see one more factual source to make the article more credible. The writer did source the jumper and got his feed back on the jump which is effective perspective. Overall, the writer could have added one more scientifically source but the quotes were effective in relaying the event.
Article found here: Fox News/ Associated Press
You are doing a good job. GG