Same problem with the Y axis numbers in your second line chart. There's a crucial difference between 0.2 percent and 2 percent.

The numbers in your Y axis are confusing. For example, is the first increase 0.14% or 14%? Readers will presume it's the former number, and if so, that's not really as dramatic as the line chart makes it seem, e.g., there was only a 0.14 percent increase, not a 14 percent increase, at the first income bracket. You need to clear this up.

Very interesting. But it's a little unclear. Percentage increase over what? What was the baseline number? How many of the overall exemptions were PBE?

Watch the passive voice. Use active voice whenever possible.

Researchers, not 'the study'

This phrasing is awkward.

All of the WaPo design elements (e.g., the social media nav bar, the subscription button, etc.) should be code, not images. The purpose of the design phase of the assignment was to figure out how to emulate the publication with code.

Your app doesn't quite match the design of the LA Times, as it currently looks online. The header and byline are different, and articles have tags listed in black boxes. Overall, it looks good, but it's missing some details that are key to the Times brand.

Again, tooltips would enhance your line charts.

I'm glad you researched the leading theories on this. Good reporting.

This line chart seems to contradict your lede: it shows that suicide rates have actually decreased for the diagnosed mentally ill, and simply plateaued for others. Your lede says that rates have 'spiked.'

This legend needs the color-coded lines to match the chart.

You need to explain the numbers here: suicides per 100,000 people.

You should add tooltips on this first bar chart.

Lead with your best chart, not a table.

Too much gap between the article and the table.

Again, your writing could be a lot clearer.

This phrasing is awkward and it confuses your message.

Instead of using citations like this, just make the words link to the source websites. That's the standard now for almost all publications, including the LA Times.

If you're going to make a working hamburger menu, it needs to be able to close.

Careful, you're cherry-picking data here to make the results seem more dramatic. This appears to be just a fluctuation between 2007 and 2009, not an overall trend worth reporting.

The line chart doesn't really show a significant decrease in TBI-related deaths unless you isolate that line to change the range of the Y axis. It's fine to simply mention the decrease; you were smart not to describe it as a large drop, etc. But you should really figure out if a decrease of 1.4 per 100,000 is even statistically significant. If not, you need to mention that in the article.

You can make this an actual date, not just text (e.g, it shows the current date). You've learned how with JS new Date( ) methods.

Again, you don't need to write this out.

This is interesting, and readers will want to know the leading theories. Deaths went down for all other age groups but went up among the elderly. Why? Ask a geriatric specialist for thoughts on this. I know you didn't have time for that sort of thing, but you should try to follow up and make this even stronger for your portfolio.

If you're going to include ads in your app, they need to be actual images. This looks broken.

You don't need to write all of this out. That's what the chart is for -- it shows us all of this. And the title of the chart is awkward and confusing because of the commas ('ER Department, Hospitalizations, and Deaths...'). I think your missing the word 'visits.'

The chart context menu is a nice feature. Good work. But you need a link to the actual CDC source data, too.

The colors in the first line chart need to have more contrast.

This needs to be a link.

This needs to be a link.

You leave us hanging here. You offer theories as to why rates are higher for men, but don't discuss the situation for American Indians.

You're right this is misleading. Most of the people had mental health conditions, but they just weren't diagnosed before their deaths. Nice catch.

This needs to be a link.

The line chart is a little confusing because you have the all-encompassing age group (10-24) as an individual line among the others.

The tooltips in the map are confusing because you show the total number of deaths in each state, rather than the rate per 1000. So there's a discrepancy between the shading and the numbers; you expect to see higher numbers in the tooltips for the darker states, but that's not the case.

Readers will want to know why certain states have higher rates. I'd research this and add the leading theories on it before you send this to employers.

The rate goes up significantly from 2009 to 2010, probably because of the economic crash. You should point that out.