✕ Sensationalism [45/10]: The headline frames the story around a 'fight' and 'corruption fears', which sets a conflict-driven and potentially sensational tone before the reader encounters the body. This risks priming the audience for drama over policy analysis.

"Brisbane local takes stadium fight to Olympic bosses as corruption fears mount"

✕ Headline / Body Mismatch [85/10]: The lead paragraph accurately introduces the core event — a petition delivered to the IOC — and includes key details (10,000 signatures, May meeting). It avoids overt editorialising and grounds the story in a concrete action.

"The last ditch effort to save Brisbane's Victoria Park from becoming home to the Olympic stadium has been taken all the way to the offices of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) in Lausanne, Switzerland."

✕ Loaded Language [7/10]: The term 'corruption fears mount' in the headline and phrases like 'perfect storm' for corruption risk introduce a strong negative valence. These are attributed to sources, but their placement gives them prominence.

"corruption fears mount"

✕ Loaded Language [4/10]: Use of 'salami tactics' is a metaphor attributed to a source, not editorialised by the reporter. Its inclusion is critical but properly contextualised as a community perspective.

"you just slice off a little piece of information at a time without disclosing the whole plan"

✕ Loaded Language [5/10]: The phrase 'game of mates' is used, which is a known Australian political corruption concept. It is attributed to experts and used to explain systemic risk, not as a direct accusation.

"This is fertile ground for what some economists call the 'game of mates'"

✕ Editorializing [9/10]: The article generally avoids emotional appeals and maintains a reporting voice, even when quoting emotive language. It distances itself from loaded terms by attributing them clearly.

✓ Comprehensive Sourcing [9/10]: The article includes a community activist (Valepyn), academic expert (Foth), integrity watchdog (Moore), Indigenous perspective (Charlton), and government officials (Crisafulli, Bleijie). Sources span civil society, academia, and government.

✕ Vague Attribution [6/10]: The IOC is quoted, but only with a generic statement deflecting responsibility. The article notes the IOC did not answer specific questions, revealing a lack of direct accountability, but this is transparently reported.

"The IOC did not directly answer those questions."

✓ Proper Attribution [8/10]: GIICA and the Deputy Premier's office declined interviews or redirected questions, which the article reports transparently, preserving credibility by not inventing responses.

"GIICA referred 7.30's questions to Queensland's Deputy Premier's office, which declined a request for an interview."

✕ Framing by Emphasis [9/10]: The article frames the stadium debate as a test of accountability and integrity, not just a local dispute. This elevates it beyond episodic reporting to systemic scrutiny of Olympic governance.

"The project has become a test case for how Brisbane's Olympics will be delivered, and whether extraordinary powers granted in the name of meeting the 2032 deadline are matched by equally robust scrutiny."

✕ Narrative Framing [8/10]: It avoids reducing the conflict to a binary 'for vs against' Olympics, instead focusing on process, transparency, and compliance — a more nuanced narrative than mere opposition.