The Star Tribune's story on the death of a bicyclist is structured in the style of an inverted pyramid.
It begins with the freshest news in a generic format (i.e. a woman has died as the result of injuries sustained from a previous accident). The nut-graph then expands with more information including the victim's name, their time of death, and where they died. The story continues with more details, included a quote from the police, where the victim was taken (which hospital) and ends with more specific details about the victim and her injuries.
This is a very effective arrangement of facts as it gives the reader all the key elements of news right off the bat. The "who", "what", "where", "when", and "why" are answered within the first two paragraphs. The reader is then pulled into the story to found out the exact details of what happened, versus the general answers given in the nut-graph.
I feel that a story like this wouldn't need to be done in any other way. It's a news brief, and will not have a huge impact on the community (and thus does not need to be turned into a feature). This story was well written.