USA TODAY - Sept. 9

September 9, 2014

The headline for the Alibaba story is cluttered and the headline overlapped was difficult to read and it seemed a little flashy for a news story. The headlines on the front page split up infinitives and verbs across lines, which is generally avoided if possible. In the Newsline headline for the Money section, “Consumers open up their wallets,” I deleted the word “up” because of redundancy. In the headline below the fold, “Senate has a secret book of rules,” I deleted “a” because articles are generally left out of headlines unless necessary, and it was not necessary in this situation.

            On the second page of the News section, the article titled “Domestic violence from boy next door,” was a personal account of domestic violence from one of the paper’s editors. While the story was newsworthy and powerful, I thought it would be better suited to the Opinions page. In the caption for the photo accompanying that article, I replaced “in a briefing” with “during a briefing” because “in” was used again later in the sentence. Also, in the note at the end of the article, it should end with a period consistent with the other endnotes in the paper. In the continuation of the Alibaba story, IPO should be spelled out on first reference. There was also some awkward white space at the bottom of the page.

            On page 3 of News, the headline “USA heads toward diabetes crisis” left more than three spaces at the end of the second line. Also, in the lead of the same story, I questioned whether or not the use of “fatter and older” was politically correct. It would definitely be worth bringing up to other editors. I also found the “Nation in Brief” section to be difficult to read and follow. It could possibly benefit from a redesign.

            In the headline “Wis. Governor just taking it one race at a time,” I deleted the word “just” to eliminate any possible editorializing. The “World in Brief” section, like the “Nation in Brief” section was difficult to read and to follow. The unrelated photo dissecting the copy is a distraction and confuses readers.