• This information was publish in 2016
• The information ha not been revised nor updated. 
• The information is current for my topic.
• the link is functional
  
  

• The information is relatable to my topic/answer  my question which is "what human rights had brazil violated?"
• The intended audience are the people who are intersted in real life problems,people who are journalist,and an person with politicial interest.
• The information at an appropriate level 
• Ive looked at a variety of sources before determining this is one. 

• The source of this document is from    Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2016 sponsered by United States Department of State • Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor.
• The author's credentials/organizational affiliations were not given.
• The author's qualifications to write the topic was that they were an  jornalist/documentarian working for courny reports for the bureau.
• There was no contact information, such as a publisher or e-mail address
• The URL does not reveal anything about the author nor source except that PDF is an file your able to download

• this information come from Brazil 2016 Human rights practices
• The information is supported by evidence
• YES the information has been reviewed and refereed
• yes i can verify any of the information in another source and from personal knowledge? 
• the language or tone doesnt seem biased but it is free of emotion.
• There no obvious errors (spelling, grammar, etc.) 

• Ihe purpose of the information is to inform.
• Do the authors/sponsors make their intentions or purpose clear? yes
• the information is fact
• the point of view appear not to be objective and impartial 
• Are there political, ideological, cultural, religious, institutional, or personal biases? no

• This article was posted in 2016
• This article’s information has not been updated nor revised 
• The information for my Topic is current the facts and data goes back only 5 or so years. 
• This article doesnt use links but mention where thyve gotten their information from.This does make the article functional and informative, yes, by adding where other information that was use is also preventing plagerism.
  
  

•  This information from the article relates to my Topic.
• The intended audience for ths article are people who seek to know about political crisis in other counries.
• The information provided is understandable at an appropriate level in which its not easily read or comprehended by an middle-schooler nor 9th grader
• I’ve looked at a variety of sources before determining this one is a good one to give off informative resources.

• The source comes from the Human Rights Watch
• The source credentials/ organizational affiliations are given such as the site is an highly recognized site world wide and deal with and good team of editors.
• The author's qualifications to write on the topic is unknown since the actual author isnt exactly mention anywhere on the article/page
• The pubisher is the Human Rights Watch
•  The URL does provde information on the article such as where,what,and who its about.
  Accuracy: The reliability, truthfulness, and correctness of the informational content.

•  The information provided in the article is for the news,reseach,ad other related articles as itself.
• The information is supported by evidence it shows web’s where you can dig more into and basic topic within the topic and/or others relating to the topic .
• The information has been reviewed and refereed by its own publishers and by other people who’ve seen this article.
• I can verify any information in the article mention form another source and from personal knowlegde.
• None lauguage is seen as biased, its all straight forward and informative form many points.
• There is obvious errors such as spelling, grammar, etc. 

• The purpose of this information was to inform other of violence around the world.
• Do the authors/sponsors make their intentions or purpose clear? Yes
• Is the information fact? opinion? propaganda? yes,no,and yes. there are facts but not opions this actricle was not personalized and there where propaganda agaisnt burtality in the law inforcement
• The point of view did appear to be objective and impartial the fact that things that were done is horrible and illegal. Despite the fact with siding aganst police burtality,abuse,ect. i didnt really see bias.
•  yes there was political, ideological, cultural, religious, institutional, maybe even some personal biases but not overl tooken over the acticle.

Brazil: Spike in killings by Rio police as country faces UN review

• The information has not been revised or updated. 
• The information is current for my topic.
• Are the links functional? yes
  
  

•  the information does relate to my topic
• the intended audience journalist,researchers,and people who interst in the topic
•  the information is at an appropriate level
• ive looked at a variety of sources before determining this is one 

• the sorce is from amnsety international
• the author's credentials or organizational affiliations given,no
• the author's qualifications to write on the topic,not given.
• there is no contact information, such as a publisher or e-mail address-
• Does the URL reveal anything about the author or source,

• Where does the information come from? statistics
• Is the information supported by evidence?  yes
• Has the information been reviewed or refereed? yes
• Can you verify any of the information in another source or from personal knowledge? yes 
• Does the language or tone seem biased and free of emotion? no
• Are there obvious errors (spelling, grammar, etc.)?  no

• the purpose of the informationis to inform
• Do the authors/sponsors make their intentions or purpose clear? yes
• Is the information fact? opinion? propaganda? fact
• Does the point of view appear objective and impartial?  yes
• Are there political, ideological, cultural, religious, institutional, or personal biases? yes there is an poitical bias through out the article.

• information has not been revised or updated since post.
• This information is current, though the issue started to be seen in increasing number in 2012. this year,2017 the numbers of killings has doubled
• These links are functional.
  
  

• The site(link above), im using answers my Question/Topic about human rights violations that effected Brazil. 
• The intended audience are the people outside of brazil who isn't aware of the violence of that huge country.
• Information is at an appropriate level (some places mention are in an different language )but you can use context clues realizing for example they're talking about poor areas.
• I've looked at variety of sources before determining if and if not,i should use this site.

• The author's credentials/ organizational affiliations are not given.
• The author's qualifications -  Nicole Froio is a freelance journalist and political blogger based in Brazil, and a University of Sheffield journalism graduate. She writes about politics, current events, feminism, human rights and pop culture.
• (contact information) e-mail address - Nicolefroio@Gmail.Com
• The URL reveal about the author/ source

• Where does the information come from? Other web links and such
• Is the information supported by evidence? Yes 
• Has the information been reviewed or refereed? Yes 
• Can you verify any of the information in another source or from personal knowledge? Yes i can there are links hidden behind the words in the article 
• Does the language or tone seem biased and free of emotion? No.Through it is focusing on certain topics is doesn't put in false details,but provide back up information and data
• Are there obvious errors (spelling, grammar, etc.)? No.