Another Wal-Mart in Columbia?!

The debate about Columbia's new Wal-Mart has been raging since...well, I don't really know. But I know it started before I began classes at Mizzou. Anyway, the specific plans were finally released and written about in the Missourian on Friday. The first thing I noticed about the article was that it used "will" in the lead. However, the construction of the Wal-Mart has not been approved by the city council yet, so I think the use is inappropriate. True, later in the sentence, it says "if," but it still creates confusion. The reporter should have said "would." The article has several other deficiencies. The reporter went on to say the plans were shown at a meeting of the Columbia Planning and Zoning Commission, and that the plans were ultimately approved by the Commission. Several quotes from Columbia citizens who were there were used in the article, but the reporter never said how many citizens (the article said "public") came. Were those mentioned in the paper the only ones interested enough to be there? Later, the article stated that this was "the first opportunity for residents to weigh in." When are/ will be the others? The Commission is hoping for city approval by Oct. 17. Will the public have more input before or after that? Another issue I had with the article is that it did not say the proposed Wal-Mart would replace a current one until the last paragraph. I did not know that. As I read the article, I was incredulous. "Columbia can't possibly need four Wal-Marts," I thought. Then, lo and behold, out of nowhere I find out it would still have three. I don't think it would have hurt to put that higher in the story. One final note: the first page said to see 8A for the rest of the story, but it was continued on 9A. That's not the reporter's fault, but Missourian editors should watch out for that. It happened with other articles in Friday's paper as well.