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 isI do trust this article, because it is from a reliable justifiable. 8. The site does give you choices, but itsource, and is not too heavily biased. limits only to articles within bbc.co.uk
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.