1. The eleventh annual report of the New York Association for improving the condition of the poor- This would be a primary source because this annual report is from the actual time period, not written from the years after it happened. This source doesn’t seem pretty trustworthy because it was their duty to report they were an association in helping the poor, so they could account for more extreme things that actually did not occur.
2. The gangs of New York: An informal history of the Underworld- this would be a secondary source because its just an overlook of how things were in the past, as it was written in the 20th centuries. It seems untrustworthy since it was written so many years later and it has a negative depiction of urban life, specifically New York.
3. Tribune- this one is definitely a primary source because it is a newspaper article from that time period. What I’m not about if its trustworthy. Although the primary goal of [most] newspapers is to remain unbias, this particular source was brought out from an editorial, which can cause a person to put their two-sense into it.