While I was bothered by the content of the article, the layout is what first got my attention. Can you spot any problems?

The design in question

1. Black and white images. Isn't color particularly important when you're comparing designs? It seems an awful shame to leave it out here, if it can be avoided.

   I understand that an interior article isn't going to have color. But why not reproduce the color originals on the web, where color is free? It's clear this was just pasted from the newspaper source directly into the site template. Not cool.

2. The criss-crossing arrows. There doesn't seem to be a particular order (nor does there need to be) for the copy, so why arrange it in such a way that arrows have to cross over each other and even stretch all the way across the layout? It's just sloppy.

   Untangle that mess. Copy should be as close as possible to its subject. It's easier to navigate and it doesn't obscure the graphics.

3. Lastly, the compression is really bothersome. It's too low and/or not tuned very well. Look at the artifacts on this text:
   

   See the crumbs around the letters?

   In fact, why is this graphic just a scan of the page? For the website, couldn't they have used the actual text and added labels to the graphic? It would have been much easier to read and searchable to boot.

Its troubling to see design criticism that's in need of design criticism.