Can anyone please mark my source analysis from the 2016 paper?
Source A would be highly useful for a historian studying the impact of the war on women's lives and experiences in Britain as it is a primary poster encouraging women to enlist in the Women's Army Auxiliary Corps, to ensure more men engage in the battle efforts. As a poster however, it is limited in providing excessive information such as what roles women played in the WAAC, however the source still proves to be a valuable source for the historian when used in conjunction with other sources to gain a greater understanding of the impact of war on women's lives in Britain. Due to the source being a British government poster, its reliability is upheld as the historian is able to gain a British perspective which is vital for a historian studying the impact of war on women in Britain, which therefore establishes its usefulness.
Source B would also be highly useful for a historian studying the impact of the war on women's lives and experiences in Britain, as it reveals the roles, conditions women experienced when undergoing work in munition factories, providing information on the wages and the differing views of women working in munition factories. Furthermore, this source is highly useful as it a book entailing historical detail, which has been peer-reviewed to ensure any non-factual information has not been included, therefore increasing its reliability, despite being a secondary source. Moreover, as the source is being told from a British perspective, it increases its usefulness for the historian wanting to learn about women's lives in Britain. However, assessing its limitations show that it does not mention the impact and experiences of women outside munition factories, however it still useful when used in conjunction with other sources to gain a greater understanding. Nevertheless, the source still ensures its usefulness to an historian studying the impact of war on women's lives and experiences in Britain.