This was a very scientific article but I felt that it was written very well. There were a lot of statistics, but they were explained and I didn't feel lost or confused while I was reading. I liked how each greenhouse gas was explained and how it was/where it came from was explained. It made the reader's job easier, so they didn't have to worry where these gases were coming from.
There were scientific experts quoted in the article to help support the facts that were being reported. They didn't use any sources who were just regular people, but for this article I don't think it was necessary. If the article was about how people felt about finding out about these other two greenhouse gases, then I would have used regular sources, but since the article wasn't about that, I think it was appropriate to use scientists as sources.
I liked the flow of this article. I think it all went together well and the transitions were good. As far as I could tell, there were no holes in this article. I liked that this article was researched and written, because it provided the readers with new information about global warming and greenhouse gases. I'm glad that journalists are finding out new information and providing it to the readers.
The story can be found here:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2008-10-24-greenhouse-gases_n.htm
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
This article was impressive! It took a very complex topic and simplified it nicely. I never personally knew the difference between carbon dioxide, methane and nitrogen trifluoride. Did you notice how there was very little jargon? This is a reporter at the top of his game.
Post a Comment