Murder: Sufficient Description

Very nice work overall on this assignment. But I can always find something to nit-pick about. Like this:

This was one of your descriptions of the suspect:

Cortez said the man was about 5 feet 10 inches to maybe 6 feet tall, in his early 20s, and medium build.

Is that sufficient? No. It's too vague to be very useful to readers. It describes so many people, it doesn't shrink the suspect pool; it broadens it to include all sorts of folks who have nothing to do with it.

Think about it. How many people in the world fit that description? It's so many that you are not narrowing down suspect possibilities in the mind of the public; you actually are making a whole lot of innocent people look guilty!

It's best to use suspect descriptions when you are so specific that it can narrow down the suspect pool, like here:

The robber was between 5-foot, 10-inches and 6-feet tall, in his early 20s, medium build, wearing a floral scarf over his face, blue jeans, a blue plaid button-up shirt and blue tennis shoes, and may have had an accomplice, according to Cortez.

This ID is far more useful. Besides telling readers the killer is color-blind, it's a distinctive description that -- combined with the time and place -- helps readers zero in on a single suspect, or a limited suspect pool.

Same thing applies with using race in a description. If you have enough additional details to narrow the suspect pool, then use race. If not, then  it's not really relevant since it would impugn many innocent people as well. It's useless in helping narrow the suspect field, and narrowing the suspect pool is the whole point of providing a description.

Final Ledes: Don't Forget The Obvious

Like here:

Last night, the East Lansing Zoning Board voted unanimously against resident Olivida Saleeby’s request to bury her husband in the backyard of the couple’s home.

It's a great lede, except we never say he's dead. Again, a reader doesn't know where you're going with this. The lede creates momentary confusion -- bury him? What, is that some weird thing he's into? It makes the reader guess why he's being buried.

So, let's anticipate and prevent the confusion by providing the obvious (to us, but not necessarily to the reader) detail: she requested to bury her dead husband.

Murder: Sufficient Description

Very nice work overall on this assignment. But I can always find something to nit-pick about. Like this:

This was one of your descriptions of the suspect:

Cortez said the man was about 5 feet 10 inches to maybe 6 feet tall, in his early 20s, and medium build.

Is that sufficient? No. It's too vague to be very useful to readers. It describes so many people, it doesn't shrink the suspect pool; it broadens it to include all sorts of folks who have nothing to do with it.

Think about it. How many people in the world fit that description? It's so many that you are not narrowing down suspect possibilities in the mind of the public; you actually are making a whole lot of innocent people look guilty!

It's best to use suspect descriptions when you are so specific that it can narrow down the suspect pool, like here:

The robber was between 5-foot, 10-inches and 6-feet tall, in his early 20s, medium build, wearing a floral scarf over his face, blue jeans, a blue plaid button-up shirt and blue tennis shoes, and may have had an accomplice, according to Cortez.

This ID is far more useful. Besides telling readers the killer is color-blind, it's a distinctive description that -- combined with the time and place -- helps readers zero in on a single suspect, or a limited suspect pool.

Same thing applies with using race in a description. If you have enough additional details to narrow the suspect pool, then use race. If not, then  it's not really relevant since it would impugn many innocent people as well. It's useless in helping narrow the suspect field, and narrowing the suspect pool is the whole point of providing a description.

Murder: Sufficient Description

Very nice work overall on this assignment. But I can always find something to nit-pick about. Like this:

This was one of your descriptions of the suspect:

Cortez said the man was about 5 feet 10 inches to maybe 6 feet tall, in his early 20s, and medium build.

Is that sufficient? No. It's too vague to be very useful to readers. It describes so many people, it doesn't shrink the suspect pool; it broadens it to include all sorts of folks who have nothing to do with it.

Think about it. How many people in the world fit that description? It's so many that you are not narrowing down suspect possibilities in the mind of the public; you actually are making a whole lot of innocent people look guilty!

It's best to use suspect descriptions when you are so specific that it can narrow down the suspect pool, like here:

The robber was between 5-foot, 10-inches and 6-feet tall, in his early 20s, medium build, wearing a floral scarf over his face, blue jeans, a blue plaid button-up shirt and blue tennis shoes, and may have had an accomplice, according to Cortez.

This ID is far more useful. Besides telling readers the killer is color-blind, it's a distinctive description that -- combined with the time and place -- helps readers zero in on a single suspect, or a limited suspect pool.

Same thing applies with using race in a description. If you have enough additional details to narrow the suspect pool, then use race. If not, then  it's not really relevant since it would impugn many innocent people as well. It's useless in helping narrow the suspect field, and narrowing the suspect pool is the whole point of providing a description.

Final Ledes: Don't Forget The Obvious

Like here:

Last night, the East Lansing Zoning Board voted unanimously against resident Olivida Saleeby’s request to bury her husband in the backyard of the couple’s home.

It's a great lede, except we never say he's dead. Again, a reader doesn't know where you're going with this. The lede creates momentary confusion -- bury him? What, is that some weird thing he's into? It makes the reader guess why he's being buried.

So, let's anticipate and prevent the confusion by providing the obvious (to us, but not necessarily to the reader) detail: she requested to bury her dead husband.

Murder: Sufficient Description

Very nice work overall on this assignment. But I can always find something to nit-pick about. Like this:

This was one of your descriptions of the suspect:

Cortez said the man was about 5 feet 10 inches to maybe 6 feet tall, in his early 20s, and medium build.

Is that sufficient? No. It's too vague to be very useful to readers. It describes so many people, it doesn't shrink the suspect pool; it broadens it to include all sorts of folks who have nothing to do with it.

Think about it. How many people in the world fit that description? It's so many that you are not narrowing down suspect possibilities in the mind of the public; you actually are making a whole lot of innocent people look guilty!

It's best to use suspect descriptions when you are so specific that it can narrow down the suspect pool, like here:

The robber was between 5-foot, 10-inches and 6-feet tall, in his early 20s, medium build, wearing a floral scarf over his face, blue jeans, a blue plaid button-up shirt and blue tennis shoes, and may have had an accomplice, according to Cortez.

This ID is far more useful. Besides telling readers the killer is color-blind, it's a distinctive description that -- combined with the time and place -- helps readers zero in on a single suspect, or a limited suspect pool.

Same thing applies with using race in a description. If you have enough additional details to narrow the suspect pool, then use race. If not, then  it's not really relevant since it would impugn many innocent people as well. It's useless in helping narrow the suspect field, and narrowing the suspect pool is the whole point of providing a description.

Murder: Sufficient Description

Very nice work overall on this assignment. But I can always find something to nit-pick about. Like this:

This was one of your descriptions of the suspect:

Cortez said the man was about 5 feet 10 inches to maybe 6 feet tall, in his early 20s, and medium build.

Is that sufficient? No. It's too vague to be very useful to readers. It describes so many people, it doesn't shrink the suspect pool; it broadens it to include all sorts of folks who have nothing to do with it.

Think about it. How many people in the world fit that description? It's so many that you are not narrowing down suspect possibilities in the mind of the public; you actually are making a whole lot of innocent people look guilty!

It's best to use suspect descriptions when you are so specific that it can narrow down the suspect pool, like here:

The robber was between 5-foot, 10-inches and 6-feet tall, in his early 20s, medium build, wearing a floral scarf over his face, blue jeans, a blue plaid button-up shirt and blue tennis shoes, and may have had an accomplice, according to Cortez.

This ID is far more useful. Besides telling readers the killer is color-blind, it's a distinctive description that -- combined with the time and place -- helps readers zero in on a single suspect, or a limited suspect pool.

Same thing applies with using race in a description. If you have enough additional details to narrow the suspect pool, then use race. If not, then  it's not really relevant since it would impugn many innocent people as well. It's useless in helping narrow the suspect field, and narrowing the suspect pool is the whole point of providing a description.

Final Ledes: Don't Forget The Obvious

Like here:

Last night, the East Lansing Zoning Board voted unanimously against resident Olivida Saleeby’s request to bury her husband in the backyard of the couple’s home.

It's a great lede, except we never say he's dead. Again, a reader doesn't know where you're going with this. The lede creates momentary confusion -- bury him? What, is that some weird thing he's into? It makes the reader guess why he's being buried.

So, let's anticipate and prevent the confusion by providing the obvious (to us, but not necessarily to the reader) detail: she requested to bury her dead husband.

Murder: Sufficient Description

Very nice work overall on this assignment. But I can always find something to nit-pick about. Like this:

This was one of your descriptions of the suspect:

Cortez said the man was about 5 feet 10 inches to maybe 6 feet tall, in his early 20s, and medium build.

Is that sufficient? No. It's too vague to be very useful to readers. It describes so many people, it doesn't shrink the suspect pool; it broadens it to include all sorts of folks who have nothing to do with it.

Think about it. How many people in the world fit that description? It's so many that you are not narrowing down suspect possibilities in the mind of the public; you actually are making a whole lot of innocent people look guilty!

It's best to use suspect descriptions when you are so specific that it can narrow down the suspect pool, like here:

The robber was between 5-foot, 10-inches and 6-feet tall, in his early 20s, medium build, wearing a floral scarf over his face, blue jeans, a blue plaid button-up shirt and blue tennis shoes, and may have had an accomplice, according to Cortez.

This ID is far more useful. Besides telling readers the killer is color-blind, it's a distinctive description that -- combined with the time and place -- helps readers zero in on a single suspect, or a limited suspect pool.

Same thing applies with using race in a description. If you have enough additional details to narrow the suspect pool, then use race. If not, then  it's not really relevant since it would impugn many innocent people as well. It's useless in helping narrow the suspect field, and narrowing the suspect pool is the whole point of providing a description.