"Police: Wis. man accused of shooting 7..."
The writer summarized the important information (gunman, injured/killed, Wisconsin) in the lead, and the nut graph went in to the details of the account and end of the search.
The proximity of the shooting is important in these stories and how it affected people. The writer summarized this right in the beginning for the reader. I thought it was interesting how the next bit of information relayed the step-by-step story of events. The writer assumed the readers would be interested in how exactly the shooting happened rather than the gunman's background. Although, this was effective because the shooting is the breaking news while the gunman's criminal background isn't.
The writer next went into detail about the criminal background of the shooter and what happened days before the event, inferring this could possibly a motive for the shooter.
I didn't think it was effective to have a witness halfway through the story. The quote:
"A witness, David Gosh of nearby West Allis, told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel he was returning from duck hunting with his father and a friend when he saw a woman emerge from the spa, screaming, as she ran into traffic." "She ran right out into the street was pounding on cars," Gosh told the newspaper. Moments later, a man with a handgun ran out. He appeared to be chasing the woman but then went back inside, Gosh said"This as a whole could be more effective earlier in the story to add some drama. Readers love drama.
After this quote and attribution, another one appears in the story about the lockdown at the mall. This was great in telling the readers how the shooting indirectly affected others who weren't outside or in the spa.
Overall, the information went from facts and statements from police and other important institutions, to the background of the shooter, and ending with eyewitness accounts and updates on the injured. This was effective story telling, but I would have moved the witness account earlier in the story to create a better effect.