Not all leads are created equal: what works and what doesn't

For this exercise, I'm comparing and contrasting the leads of articles about the Higgs boson particle and the end of the universe. I wanted to pick a topic that I know nothing about so all of the information would be new and I wouldn't already have a personal connection/interest with the material. Since science has never been a strong area of mine, I decided this would be a good way to go. My only knowledge of the Higgs boson particle comes from an anecdote on an episode of The Big Bang Theory.

I found five articles about the exact same thing from five different sources: 3 News, Reuters (though Huffington Post), Escapist Magazine, The Inquisitr and The Examiner. Most leads were a combination of the first-day lead and the second-day lead. The second-day aspect comes from the fact that scientists discovered what they believe to be the Higgs boson particle last year. However, new information is being introduced in these stories, and a lot of the leads read as breaking news leads. Subsequently, there are first-day components to these leads as well.

While all of the leads seem well written for the most part, there are certain things that bother me about some of them. For example, the lead from the article in The Examiner reads:

"The Higgs boson may lead to doom for the universe, the kind of doom even the trendy preppers couldn't find a way to ride out. According to CBS News on Tuesday, Feb. 19, 2013, scientists believe they have found the Higgs boson, which is a subatomic particle that is key in making calculations about the future of space and time."

My first problem with this lead is that it left me wondering what the heck a trendy prepper is. To me, the word trendy evokes the image of a tall, thin girl with long, wavy hair who looks like she just walked out of an Urban Outfitters catalogue. So, what? Is a trendy prepper one of those girls who just happens to be very well prepared? Our textbook makes a point of saying that if something in a lead stops you, it probably needs to be reworked. I also think that this lead is unnecessarily long. Maybe some of that information could be saved for a following paragraph. Does the lead really need to point out that the Higgs boson is a subatomic particle that is key in making calculations about the future of space and time, or is there a better home for that information?

Speaking of lengthy leads, here's the one from Escapist Magazine:

The Large Hadron Collider (LHC), that big particle accelerator that straddles the Franco-Swiss border near Geneva, has been on the receiving end of much admiration lately for finding more proof of the existence of the Higgs boson particle than anything before it. Naturally, having sort-of-maybe found this grand missing piece of physics, a few scientists have started theorizing about what the implications of its existence might really be. Their conclusion involves a situation where, billions of years from now, another universe bubbles up in the center of ours and erases it. All of it. Yes, the entire thing. Science!"

Whoa there. As far as I'm concerned, this is a perfect example of an overworked lead. The words "Large Hadron Collider" are linked to another article that explains what it is, so "that big particle accelerator that straddles the Franco-Swiss border near Geneva" is not only superfluous but also cumbersome. We also don't need to know that it's been admired lately. The conversational quality of this lead is appealing, but there's far too much information crammed in there. Furthermore, the most important part is way at the end. If I were to rewrite this lead, I would suggest something like this:

"After theorizing the implications of the existence of the Higgs boson particle, scientists have come up with a conclusion that involves a situation where, billions of years from now, another universe bubbles up in the center of ours and erases it. All of it."

All of the other information in the existing lead seems secondary to me.

My favorite lead came from the article I found on 3 News:

"Scientists studying data from the Large Hadron Collider have some bad news - their calculations suggest our universe will end catastrophically, devoured from within by a vacuum bubble expanding at the speed of light, destroying everything in its path."

This lead had me at hello. It's so captivating! There's no way a reader would see this lead and think, "booooring." There's enough information here that I know what the article is going to be about, but it doesn't bombard me with facts that could be saved for supporting paragraphs. The greatest thing about this lead, though, is the language that's used. Just take a look at the choices this reporter made: catastrophically, devoured, speed of light, destroying everything in its path. Those are good choices! After I read this lead, I was curious to see whether or not this article passed the checklist for opening paragraphs provided by our textbook. I went through the checklist step by step, and here's what I found:

Do the opening paragraphs provide a sense of scene or place? Absolutely. Forget the opening paragraphs; the lead itself sets the scene. I can literally picture a bubble (much like the one used to protect Hogwarts in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows) swallowing our universe and killing every single one of us. It's not exactly a happy scene, but this isn't exactly happy news. It definitely gets the job done.

Do the opening paragraphs take advantage of a strong "what's next" element if there is one? In this case, the "what's next" element is the end of the universe. Despite the fact that this catastrophe isn't expected to happen for billions of years, the sense of urgency is undeniable. Later in the article we're informed that more research will be done, and hopefully more conclusive results will come from that.

Do the opening paragraphs feature a very good quote, the best one or the perfect one? There are several great quotes in this article, but I don't think the best one is featured first. This first quote is, "If you use all the physics that we know now and you do what you think is a straightforward calculation, it's bad news." It's not a very strong quote. The quote that I believe to be the strongest is, "This calculation tells you that many tens of billions of years from now, there'll be a catastrophe... What happens is you get just a quantum fluctuation that makes a tiny bubble of the vacuum the universe really wants to be in, and because it's a lower-energy state, this bubble will then expand, basically at the speed of late, and sweep everything before it." I would recommend finding a way to feature that quote earlier in the article.

Do the opening paragraphs make clear what the impact is on readers? I think the impact here is pretty clear. Some people may not care because billions of years from now, we'll all be dead and gone. We won't be around to experience the whole vacuum bubble thing. Nonetheless, I think there's a definite impact.

Do the opening paragraphs provide a "cosmic element," is appropriate? Yes. I don't think elaboration is needed for this one.

Do the opening paragraphs move at a nice pace? I certainly think they do. I didn't get bored reading this article, and I didn't get stuck despite its scientific nature. I may not know a lot about this subject, but I still felt comfortable with the language and material. I think that overall, this article is well written.