I’ll be honest and say, while I enjoyed this article (and recognized the name of one of the people on the tourism panel described in the first paragraph), I don’t think the style it was written in stood out as something fantastic. In fact, I think the piece had several flaws.

For one, there’s several places where vague terms or phrases are used. Semple mentions in the second paragraph that the “celebrity of the event” was an advertising executive from Lonely Planet, but he fails to actually name that executive. That’s not exactly information that has to be kept secret, is it? He’s also vague on where, when, and for what purpose the panel on tourism was taking place, and who “the audience” was. There is at least one spot where he is unclear in what he means–on the bottom of the fifth page he makes reference to “the travel guide company” but doesn’t name it. Does he mean Lonely Planet? If so, it’s not immediately obvious; before page five, he refers to LP by name twice on page one and that’s it. Readers who aren’t familiar with LP might get confused.
Finally, he makes reference to “Queens enthusiasts” but fails to really specify what he means–are they residents? People in the tourism industry? News reporters and journalists? Who exactly are the Queens enthusiasts who promote “the array of cultural institutions?”

That last point feeds into an issue with sourcing. The most important and most relevant quotes, in my opinion, came from three people, all of whom work for NYC & Company. Of those quotes, most seemed to come from Mr. MacKay, or at least that was my impression. From the journalism classes I’ve taken so far, I’ve learned that for a topic this broad,  it’s not good to only have one or two sources. NYC & Company certainly would be an important source for this sort of story, but I feel that he should’ve spoken to at least one other tourism agency, and especially one devoted solely to Queens.

Finally, some of the quotes didn’t seem important. The very first quote in the article adds absolutely nothing to the story because Semple didn’t identify the LP executive, didn’t explain what made him so important that he “should’ve been carried into the room,” and doesn’t mention him again in the article.

The references to aluminum siding seem really off the mark as well, but I don’t know if that’s because I don’t understand them. Either way, I don’t see how MacKay’s quote about the Woody Allen film are relevant to the story. Surely there was a more fitting quote he could’ve used? Maybe something about the various industrial zones in the borough or a quote about the “inadequate public transportation” he mentions?

I feel that the ending, at least, sums up what the article tried to convey: Queens is growing in popularity, but still has a way to go before it’s as well known or visited as Brooklyn or Manhattan. I also thought that in terms of facts, the article was pretty thorough in covering growth in the tourism and hotel industries, and I felt it did justice to the sights Queens has to offer.

Overall, I think this article, while not being entirely terrible, is severely lacking.