You already have a reference list for your investigation. Today you dig one layer deeper: who actually wrote each source, what expertise they bring, and whether they have a reason to push a particular conclusion. That check is what turns a list of links into evidence you can defend when someone asks you why you believed a page.
Think of one page you used while building sm4_references. Can you name the person or organisation that wrote it, without opening the tab? If you cannot, that is exactly the gap this lesson closes.
Missing sm4_references? Open sm4_search_log in the same folder, or two bookmarked investigation pages. List the two sources you will use today. Build or catch up the full reference list later — you can still write authorship notes on those two sources now.
You will write a short authorship note under each source you keep. Learn the pattern first, then use the table as a quick reference.
Investigation question: "What does a retail Work Experience placement in Ireland typically involve?"
Source: a blog post titled "Nail your shop-floor placement" on a CV-writing service site.
Authorship note: The post is by "Team CareerBoost" with no named writer and no listed retail experience; the site sells paid CV packages. The commercial goal is to push readers toward a paid service, so treat placement tips as marketing copy until you match them against a named supervisor, ETB guidance, or Citizens Information.
Verify: About page lists only a brand name and a sales form — could not verify a named retail expert.
That is the quality bar for the notes you will write on your own sources.
| Concept | Why it matters | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Authorship — who created or published the source | If you cannot name the writer, you cannot judge expertise or agenda | Citizens Information page on apprenticeships (public information service) |
| Authenticity — whether the source is genuinely what it claims to be | Lookalike sites and empty About pages can pass a quick skim | — |
| Named vs anonymous — clearly identified and checkable, or nobody you can pin down | Named sources can be verified; anonymous posts are weak evidence on their own for KA1 | Met Éireann summary on met.ie vs a Reddit comment with no profile history |
| Expertise and agenda — relevant knowledge, plus whether the writer gains if you believe them | Skill is not the same as neutrality; a strong writer can still be selling something | Named dietitian with cited studies vs a supplement shop blog |
Authenticity check (60 seconds): Open About or Contact, the footer, and the browser tab title. Look for a real organisation name, a postal address, or a staff list. If nothing checks out, say so in your verify line — that honest line still counts.
Pair check first (about 3 minutes): With a partner, take the words from the key concepts table — authorship, authenticity, named and anonymous, expertise, agenda, conflict of interest, verification — and match each one to the plain-English meaning your teacher puts on the board. Agree on each pair before you debate, because shared definitions make the discussion fairer.
As a class, place markers on each statement. There is no single school answer: justify your position with the ideas from the key concepts table, then hear how others argue.
After the first statement, your teacher will write one live authorship note on the board from a real investigation page so you can see the finished product before you open your own file.
Keep this table open while you write your notes. Your teacher will also leave it projected during Independent Practice.
| Issue | Solution |
|---|---|
| I cannot find any author name on the page | Check the top and bottom of the article, an About or Contact page, the site footer, and the browser tab title. If you still have only a brand name, treat the organisation as the author and say so in your note. If you cannot identify even the organisation, mark the source anonymous and decide whether it is only a lead. |
| The author has a grand job title but no proof | Search the person's full name plus the organisation. Look for a staff directory, LinkedIn, a professional register, or another independent site that mentions them. If nothing verifies the title, write that the claimed expertise is unverified. |
| The page looks official but feels salesy | Ask what the publisher gains if you believe them. Product pages, lead-gen blogs, and "free guide" funnels often hide a commercial agenda. Name that agenda in sentence 2 of your authorship note. |
| My two sources are both from the same organisation | That is one publisher, not two independent checks. Pick a second source from a different organisation so your authorship notes actually compare different writers. |
Sentence starters (use or adapt):
Stuck on a page with no byline? Do not skip it — write that there is no named author and whether the organisation can be identified. That honest note still counts.
You're previewing this lesson. Get full access to this lesson and hundreds more — each one ready to teach, with interactive activities, printable resources and pupil progress tracking built in.