Field trip of world religions doesn't go far

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-beliefs27-2009apr27,0,2546661.story

lead: "In his quest to have students experience firsthand how people around the world worship, Varun Soni, the dean of religious life at USC, did not start up some expensive study-abroad program. He just ventured a few blocks from campus."

The lead and title were definitely very captivating.

the news was odd, timely and prominent. It covered basically all of the news values.

My favorite part of this piece was the number and variety of sources. Since the piece was about so many different religions and experiencing other religions, it's only appropriate that there were so many different sources. I definitely don't think there was any information that could have been added or anything that was left out. The sources were of varying age, status and cultural/religious background.

Also, the quotes were chosen so well! I feel like this piece could have been a bust or the journalist could have spent all of his time writing about the background of each religion, but instead he got to the point, got the reactions and moved on.

One paragraph that I particularly liked was the fourth paragraph. It was a descriptive scene. I've mentioned this before, but I have tried to put scene-setter leads and other scenes in my stories, but they always either turn out to be heavily descriptive or not informative enough.

What was interesting about this story is that it is hard to identify one single lead and nutgraf. I think the first 4 paragraphs provide all the information you need and are very captivating...it is almost as if they work together to be a giant lead/nutgraf chunk. It seems like the first and fourth paragraphs are leads, and the second and third paragraphs together are the nutgraf.

this story definitely does it's job. it's entertaining, informative and newsworthy. I was so blinded by its awesomeness, that I can't even find anything else it needs.'

One thing I did want to mention, is that the title is a little misleading (until you read the piece). The title reads, "Field trip of world religions doesn't go far," the wording, "doesn't go far," makes it seem like the field trip was a flop. Or at least that's what I thought. I'm not suggesting a different title, just making an observation.

Also, I've noticed with a lot of LA Times pieces, and other news papers i've read, especially online, that the structure is a little more scattered than what we've been taught. I think this is necessary. I think the basic structures we've been taught are a good starting point, but in order to fit all of the necessary information, the structure won't always be as clear cut. (This is kind of obvious and goes without saying, but hey, i said it anyway). I think the key is finding a structure that fits, is easy to follow and not jarring. This piece definitely did that.

If I were a journalist, this is the kind of news I would want to find. A+ LA Times!