1. 1. There seems to be no apparent author.
2. There is no other aim besides educating
and gaining awareness to Charles Taylor
3. The site achieves aims, by having a lot
of information.
5. The information can be checked with
other news websites.
6. I can see clearly when the article was
published.
7. The information is not biased, but does
not contain many good facts, but
considering the context of being
charged with war crimes, it is
I do trust this article, because it is from a reliable justifiable.
8. The site does give you choices, but it
source, and is not too heavily biased.
limits only to articles within bbc.co.uk

2. 1. There is no apparent author.
2. The reason is to persuade us
to buy the dehydrated
water.
3. The site does not achieve
it’s aim, because it doses
not appeal me.
5. There is no information
related to this topic.
6. It does not tell when the sight
was produced.
7. The information is
biased, saying that all other
forms of water are
horrible, except dehydrated
water.
8.No it does not give you other
sites and links to check
information.
I do not trust this website,
because it is obviously a
spoof, because how can you
dehydrate something that is
used to hydrate you? The
information is biased, and
reliable source are found.