History a level

Structure: Evaluation of Source A, Evaluation of Source B, Evaluation of Source C, Conclusion.
All sources are primary or contemporary sources, will be written by a person of the time and usually in the language of the time. Use contextual knowledge to show what you know about the author, are they employed by Cromwell? Are they a bishop? Etc. Look at what they are writing, a diary, a private letter, a sermon etc. Look at the date and use your contextual knowledge to show you understand what is happening around the date. You need to back up or contradict the source and remember to reference the value of the source. Is it less valuable/biased because the person has an agenda, or they are employed by Cromwell?
You need to talk about the content, tone, author, date, audience/type, strengths, limitations and why the source is useful.
For your conclusion make an overall judgement of why they are useful, what do they have in common? Suggest what other sources would be useful to have a better understanding of the topic, so might a source from the Welsh be more useful? Or from common people of the time?
In your conclusion, do not compare the sources, ranks the sources, or say that any source is not valuable, as well as say that they are useful because they are a contemporary source.

Structure: Evaluation of interpretation 1, Evaluation of interpretation 2, Other possible interpretations, Conclusion/Your interpretation.
The sources will be written by people after the event, and they will both have a different interpretation about the same issue. You must judge how valid they are, and also identify other possible interpretations. You must recognise what is influencing the author to think this way, you can usually find this in their attribution, this may say things like they are a Tudor political historian which is why they may take a political view. You must talk about content, authorship, context, tone, strengths, limitations and the overall value of the source. You also need to distinguish whether they are a traditional historian or a revisionist historian.
Traditional historians: Usually write up to the 1960s, they look at important people such as Henry or Cromwell, they view change from the top and believe that change happens because of leader. They use official documents like laws, speeches, diaries, letters.
Revisionist historians: Usually write past 1960s and onwards. They usually challenge the views of traditional historians; they look at the perspective of ‘ordinary people’ and social change. They will look at how the attitudes of the people influence leaders and usually have access to new sources like parish records.
To evaluate interpretations: Summaries what they are about, what evidence does the historian use and identify the key arguments, then back up or contradict the key arguments. Then look at the author’s attributions, when was it written, are they a specialist in a certain time of history, and then give an overall view, do you agree?
For the Other Possible Interpretations: You should look at the interpretations given in the question, so say you have a political view and a religious view you could then choose a socio/economic view for the OPI. If the interpretations are strongly yes and strongly no, then you can go in the middle, also for higher marks you could say it was a multitude of factors.
For your conclusion: State your opinion and justify it, also make relation to the other interpretations, so I agree that Henry was motivated by money like Interpretation 1 suggests etc. Also show the positives and limitations of the source, so author of interpretation 1 is a political historian yet is talking about religious history.