Lead Critiques

Navy Yard: Swat team's 'stood down' at mass shooting scene
This is a really good lead. In the first sentence, the who, what, where, and when were all answered. Who: heavily armed police. What: ordered to stand down by superiors. Where: Washington, DC. When: this Monday. In addition, the sentence is structured in a way that cuts right to the chase--the action came first. Rather than having a very simple sentence and saying "Superiors ordered one of the first teams of heavily armed police to respond to Monday's shooting in Washington DC to stand down," which doesn't get to the point until the last two words of the sentence, the reporter structured the sentence so right away the reader knows the very basics of what happened. It is clear and gives the readers a good amount of information while still making it interesting enough for them to want to read on. The only thing I would change about this lead is to take out the part that says "the BBC can reveal." Those are just four extra words that don't add any additional content. Other than that, this lead is very good!

Starbucks, in switch, asks customers not to bring guns into stores
This is another really good lead. The first sentence who (Starbucks), what (ban on guns), and where (in its cafes). Assuming the lead is the first three paragraphs or so rather than just the first sentence, it also begins to explain why (because of its liberal-leaning corporate image). This is a good lead because it gives the reader a lot of information and it also draws them in because the issue at hand--gun control--is such a hot topic right now. Also, it makes the reader curious as to how they would execute this ban on guns, which would encourage them to continue reading. The only thing that I would add to this lead to make it even better is to include when this ban would be implemented. Overall, this is a great lead.

Oklahoma deputies pull bodies from lake; may date to '60s, 1970 disappearances
This lead is not as good. The first sentence gives the reader absolutely no relevant information. The second sentence makes me want to continue reading because it mentions something "macabre," but it still gives no important information. Information saying what happened finally is introduced in the fourth sentence--bones and skulls were found in an Oklahoma lake. That should've been included in the very first sentence because it both very interesting and pertinent to the story. Still, at four sentences in, only the question "what?" has been answered, and the reader could have known so much more information at this point. Also, later in the article, at a point which isn't really considered a lead, the reporter generalizes everyone, saying "the residents near Foss Lake...are wondering..." and it is doubtful that he spoke to every single resident to find out if they were wondering about this.

Rewrite:

Foss Lake, Okla.-- Six bodies were found in at the bottom of a lake, possibly resolving two unsolved cases from the 1960s and '70s. The bodies were in two cars at the bottom of Foss Lake, 150 miles west of Oklahoma City. This finding may provide answers to multiple disappearances from Sayre, Okla. Police were training with new sonar equipment when they found the remains. At least one skull is believed to belong to one of the six missing persons. However, identifying the remains will take time.