How do you analyse a source?

Source analysis is no easy feat but paramount to the work of any zealous historian. We are naturally inquisitive. We are detective like in our means of investigation. Yet, instead of cracking a case, we already know its details and instead aim to provide our own interpretation on secrets already revealed. We want to tell our teachers/ the examiner how this particular source has earnt its place in our extensive history. To put my approach to source analysis out in a simple way, I present a checklist. Dates- when was the source written? This doesn't mean we go on a rant about everything we know that happened during this time, however tempting this may be (afterall, we spend so long learning these dates!!??) We just want to demonstrate that we have an awareness of the period and how it is important to the source's contents.Medium- is it a letter? a clause? a treaty? records? what's the significance of this? Audience and authourship- who is writing? who to? what's the effect therefore? question bias.Primary or secondary- ties all the above together. Is it a contemporary source or the words of the historian? How does this affect its reliability. Pick a point and go to town. Conclusion