Skip to content
Turing

Analysis of the article

Degüellan a activista LGBTTTI dentro de su casa en Ometepec

Quadratín Guerrero · published on May 20, 2017

How is it written?

Very good writing

The article uses respectful language.

Is this analysis correct?

Your answer trains Turing and improves the rating.

Yes, it's correct No, I want to correct it

To answer, you have to Sign-in: so your corrections remain in your follow-up.

Correct Turing's analysis

Published
May 20, 2017
Analyzed
November 11, 2026
State
Online
Leer en guerrero.quadratin.com.mx PDF
Share

Share this analysis

X Facebook Threads WhatsApp

The text

Where we found it

These are the paragraphs where we find something, without reproducing the entire note. The other underlines are drafting details; the number leads to their explanation in the analysis. Tap or hover over a mark to see why we pointed at it.

Quadratín Guerrero guerrero.quadratin.com.mx

By Maria Fernanda Carranza Alcaraz ·

abc Sensationalism abc What it does well abc Inclusive language

Degüellan a activist LGBTTTI dentro de su casa en Ometepec

En las primeras horas de este sábado, vecinos se percataron que el estilista y activist de los derechos de community development. lésbico gay, yacía sin vida en su cama, boca abajo, handcuffed1 con una cuerda y con una herida producida con arma punzo cortante en el cuello, que provocó que se desangrara profusamente.

El joven tenía una estética frente a la tienda de auto servicio Súper Che de Ometepec y hace unas semanas participó en una marcha de community development. lésbico gay por las principales calles de esta ciudad.

Vecinos suponen que el homicidio se perpetró aproximadamente a las 4:00 de la mañana; fueron policías preventivos de Ometepec que actuaron como primeros respondientes, mismos que llegaron aproximadamente a las ocho de la mañana y acordonaron el área para impedir el paso de the people. Una hora más tarde, llegó personal de la coordinación de la Policía Ministerial quienes recogieron las primeras evidencias.

The rating

How Turing arrived at 99

What deducts from and adds to the rating, whom the article listens to, what is worth changing and what it does well.

Very good

  • Inclusive language
  • Respectful

The article uses respectful language.

News articleReports facts. We check that it tells them with respect and without morbidity.

Text by 2017 Date of publication

Analyzed with Turing v2.8 · What changed

AI was not involved in this article: it was rated only by Turing’s rules.

What takes points off

The bar grows with the weight of each problem in the rating. Empty means no flags.

Derogatory terms No flags
Name and gender No flags
Blames the victim No flags
Sensationalism Leve · 1 señalamiento · resta 2
Hostile speech No flags
Imprecise terms No flags

What adds points

What the article does well. It offsets part of what takes points off, never all of it.

Gender and rights perspective 2 strengths
Inclusive language 100%

How to read this rating

  • It has a yellowish detail, shown below. They take points off, but they are not enough to call it a “sensationalist article”: that happens when sensationalism sets the tone of the whole article. In the statistics it counts among articles “with some sensationalist detail”.
  • Why is the rating high? What the article does well, such as naming the person’s identity, giving context or echoing the demand for justice, offsets part of what takes points off. It never erases it: an article with flags does not reach 100.
How we arrived at 99 out of 100
  1. Every article starts with100
  2. Sensationalism−2
  3. Gender and rights perspective+4
  4. Inclusive language+5
  5. What it does well offsets only part of what it loses−8
  6. Rating99

What is worth changing

  1. Sensationalism …de los derechos de la comunidad lésbico gay, yacía sin vida en su cama, boca abajo, handcuffed con una cuerda y con una herida producida con arma punzo cortante en el cuello, que… See it in the text Tabloid crime detail. If it’s needed to understand the facts, say it once and soberly.

What it does well

  • Names the LGBTTTIQANB+ population
  • Gives a voice to collectives and activists

What it claims

What the article says, fact-checked

In analyzing the memo, Turing reviews the figures, laws, and cases he claims and what the organizations, legislators, and authorities he cites say, and compares them to Memorial, Legislative Observatory, and published verifications.

Turing is comparing what the note states with the Memorial, the Legislative Observatory and published verifications...

The proof

Certified copy

Proof that this article existed exactly as Turing read it, even if it is later changed or deleted.

Record of existence on the internet

Reference number CC-WXRC-EBCJ

Valid and verifiable Sealed on November 11, 2026, 03:40:08 (Central Mexico time)

Código QR del certificado CC-WXRC-EBCJ Scan to verify
  1. 1. Copy and digital fingerprint We saved what Turing read and took its SHA-256 fingerprint.
  2. 2. RFC 3161 timestamp An independent third party (FreeTSA) signed the fingerprint on November 11, 2026, 03:40:08 (Central Mexico time).
  3. 3. Anchored in Bitcoin The fingerprint is in the OpenTimestamps calendars; it will be in a Bitcoin block within a few hours.
  4. 4. Copy at Internet Archive Saved on November 11, 2026 on servers that are not ours. See the copy
  5. 5. Monitoring It was still online on November 11, 2026. We check it from time to time.

INTERNET ARCHIVE · Wayback Machine

Backed up on archive.org

Internet Archive, an independent digital library, saved its own copy on its servers on November 11, 2026, 10:15 (UTC). We check its index to confirm it exists before showing it here.

Why does this make it authentic?
  • It is an independent witness. Internet Archive is a non-profit digital library that has preserved the web since 1996. It has no ties to Memoria y Resistencia or to whoever published the content.
  • The copy is theirs, not ours. Their own system captures it, stores it on their servers and stamps it with their own date and time. Neither we nor the publisher can edit it or change its date.
  • Anyone can verify it. It is at a public web.archive.org address that contains the date. Anyone can open it without asking us and compare it with our copy and its fingerprint.
  • It is a recognized reference. Journalists, researchers and lawyers often cite it to show what a page looked like on a given date.
  • Two witnesses that match. Our timestamp and the Internet Archive copy are made separately. If anyone claimed we altered the copy, the archive.org one would disprove it.

Internet Archive and its logo are trademarks of Internet Archive. We use them only to show where the copy is; this is not an endorsement by them.

SHA-256 fingerprint of the copy 7085bd63e4c55b35a43ed0d3b580aa0f16f690e469bd7ad8646cfa3d2eae73bb

Turing read it directly from the public link, with no human involvement.

See the certificate Download as PDF Check another folio
What is it worth as evidence?

It is a technical proof of integrity and date: it shows that this exact content existed at that moment and was not modified afterwards. In Mexico, information in electronic media is recognized as evidence, and its weight depends on the reliability of the method used to create and keep it, on its remaining intact and on its being available for later consultation (Commercial Code, art. 1298-A; Federal Code of Civil Procedure, art. 210-A; National Code of Civil and Family Procedure, art. 348).

That is why each copy uses open standards that anyone can verify without trusting us: SHA-256 fingerprint, third-party RFC 3161 timestamp, OpenTimestamps on Bitcoin and the independent Internet Archive copy.

It is not a notarial certification of facts or a NOM-151 preservation certificate. If you need it for a lawsuit, the same fingerprint can be backed by them. Write to us with the folio.

Record

About the note

Data

Byline
Maria Fernanda Carranza Alcaraz
Published
May 20, 2017
Last analyzed
November 11, 2026
Turing
2.8 (the current one)
State
Online
Place of the events
Mexico

Saved versions

  • 99Version 1 · November 11, 2026 · 197 words

Every time someone analyzes the article, we read it again. If the outlet changed it, we save a new version and compare.

Are you from the outlet?

If you work at the outlet or wrote the article and think the analysis has an error, request a review: we give you a reference number and reply in writing within 10 business days.

Request a review

Keep exploring

Preparing your PDF… We are putting together the analysis with the underlined text and the QR code.

Made by and for the community

This tool is free because someone donated before you

We receive no government funding. Your donation helps us keep reviewing how the press names LGBTTTIQANB+ people and keep the memory of each case alive.

Donate $100 once

Secure payment with Stripe through Nodo Cívico, the organization behind Memoria y Resistencia.

See all options

The analysis is automatic: it can be wrong with irony, with quotes the article criticizes or with very short texts. To protect the people in the cases, their legal name does not appear on this page. How we rate.