✕ Headline / Body Mismatch [9/10]: The headline accurately reflects the core conflict in the article: Indigenous heritage challenges and calls for a halt to stadium work. It avoids hyperbole and centers the advocates' position without exaggeration.

"Victoria Park advocates urge Queensland government to stop stadium work until Indigenous heritage challenges assessed"

✕ Loaded Language [10/10]: The article uses neutral, descriptive language throughout, avoiding emotionally charged terms. Even when quoting strong statements (e.g., 'bulldozers and excavators'), it attributes them properly and avoids amplifying them with editorial language.

"bulldozers and excavators are already lining up"

✕ Loaded Language [1/10]: The article quotes government officials using forceful language ("No way, we are good to go") but presents them factually, without adopting their tone. The overall narrative voice remains calm and informative.

""No way, we are good to go," he said."

✕ Passive-Voice Agency Obfuscation [10/10]: Passive voice is used appropriately (e.g., 'is seen as') without obscuring agency. When agency is known, it is clearly named (e.g., 'the Queensland government has said').

"The Queensland Government has said it plans to revitalise the parts of the park not taken up by stadium"

✓ Viewpoint Diversity [10/10]: The article quotes multiple named sources from opposing sides: Yagara Elder Gaja Kerry Charlton, hydrogeologist Ned Hamer, and Deputy Premier Jarrod Bleijie. This ensures diverse expertise and lived experience are represented.

"We're still in the Section 10 process and they've started putting up fences," she said."

✓ Comprehensive Sourcing [10/10]: The sourcing includes Indigenous elders, scientific experts, and government officials, providing a balanced range of authority types. The Indigenous perspective is centered through direct quotation and cultural explanation.

""Many of these trees pre-date European settlement. Our totems are all around here. In the trees, the habitats, the ecosystems.""

✓ Proper Attribution [10/10]: The article attributes all claims clearly, whether quoting officials, elders, or experts. There is no vague attribution or anonymous sourcing.

"Mr Bleijie has previously said under-utilisation of the park was why it was suited to development."

✕ Framing by Emphasis [10/10]: The article frames the story around the tension between government urgency and unresolved Indigenous heritage claims, rather than reducing it to a simple conflict or political horse race. It treats the heritage issue as substantively valid, not just procedural.

"But Yagara Elder Gaja (Aunty) Kerry Charlton, a signatory to five challenges to the stadium project under the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection (ATSIHP) Act, said the application was still being assessed by Federal Environment Minister Murray Watt."

✕ Narrative Framing [9/10]: The narrative does not default to a 'two sides' conflict frame but instead emphasizes the legal and cultural weight of the heritage challenges as the central issue, giving it proportionate attention.

"The ATSIHP Act challenges are seen as the best opportunity for those opposed to the Victoria Park stadium to have it stopped, after the project was made exempt from state planning laws and cleared on environmental grounds."