I don't know how much it'll help but here goes. I wrote my history NEA essay on the French Revolution looking at the monarchy being to blame for the French Revolution of 1789.
Defined key word - "Revolution" and linked it to the context (Peasant uprising against the monarchy due to discontent) - Dictionary def quote + footnote
I added a theorist's view and because I was looking at the peasantry I spoke of how it correlated with Marxist theory
Allude to the main factors - things you'll be talking about
End by alluding to your conclusion - e.g. The .... aspects will be further explored however, it will be concluded that...
First few paragraphs
- one per monarch and looking at evidence for and against the statement that the monarchy were to blame
- Focus on historical context
- Justification - "implying that the monarchy wasn't to blame"
- Suggest what other factors could influence this statement i.e. parlement, tax system (in this essay's case)
- So here I added my first source where I analysed it like in British History's essay extract
--- Provenance, context, purpose, author, date, tone etc
- After each point I would add in a statement like "this decreases/ increases the source's value because..."
- And then end the paragraph on it's reliablity
- I added a conclusion paragraph after it starting "This conveys the idea that...was/wasn't to blame" (link to question) and then summarise why and which other factor(s) are more relevant
I then continued with the essay focusing on these factors I had introduced arguing against the statement (don't focus on more than one per paragraph)
I did a paragraph per monarch for this factor and compared each with another showing the difference in people's thoughts on the monarchy
Other factors that influence the truth of the statement (could be cultural, economic and/or social)
- This is where I introduced the two historians I looked at: George Rude and William Doyle:
One big paragraph on how there are different interpretations and the views some tend to agree with
- another small paragraph on the two you've chosen and how they have opposing views
- Paragraph on one historian's book and main views and how they relate to question e.g. who they focus on; Rude focuses one the historically neglected crowd and links to the revolution being a social revolution as well as political due to the attack on the Bastille
Alternatively, (introduce other historian's book and views)
- could use quotes (remember to footnote and add to biography)
- next complete a paragraph(s) on each historian:
- when wrote - do they have all relevant info, outdated?
- Purpose, others views on it, profession - respected historian?, used as text material?
- Value overall?
- Background - influences on them!?
( do this for both in separate paragraphs)
You can also state that they support sources, just add why.
- Introduce another factor influencing the question
- (like section one in structure)
- Add another source (relevant to question, can find on historical websites)
- Provence etc (find as previously typed)
- another factor
- add source next (different paragraph)
- State what your overall opinion is ("The ... was largely influence by... due to... as well as...)
- For argument and context
- Which historian supports this...
- Which historian you find more valuable e.g. Doyle's argument that... is convincing because it...
- Finish with something like "overall, (your argument/ conclusion) because ...
Hope this is useful.