Source Analysis (1 Viewer)

[baynie]

Does anyone have good tips on how to do the source analysis. I use 'MARCO' but i still can never seem to crack past the 7/10 mark.

 

[CrOsToWnTrAfFiC]

You have to talk about usefulness alot. eg. how this source is usefuil in telling us about the weather conditions of the Somme. And compare it's usefullness with reliability. NEVER say that something is not useful. You would not be given a source unless it was useful. Even if a source is unreliable because of origin and motive or something like that it is still useful for some things or as an example of prpaganda etc etc.

Make sure you say why something is useful/reliable/unreliable and integrate your own knowledge as well as what the source says.

Make sure you refer to sources in your essay. eg. During WW1 france and Belgium recieved record rain fall and the weather conditions during the third battle of Ypres were so terrible it was nicknamed the batttle of the Bog (Source B).

It's amazing how many marks you lose for not putting in those litle bracktes or saying according to souce such and such.

Hope this helps

 

[Kmahal1990]

Never saying a source is bias. Saying its bias doesnt mean anything, everything is bias. People seem to think if they can contrast the views of a source with their own knowledge, and proving how bias something is, that they somehow stumbled on a gold mine, you havent. As CrOsToWnTrAfFiC said, everything is useful, depending on what you want to know. An English source stating that the German soldiers look like tarantulas and eat little children is unrealistic. So why would this be any use? Because it would be useful to a historian studying English war propaganda.