This would mean that the source lacks historical background and in conjunction with the possibility with little to none peer reviewing, it makes the source fairly unreliable for a historian studying the nature of trench warfare. Also the perspective of a journalist wouldn’t increase the usefulness of the source for a historian, as it provides information already available elsewhere in the historical discourse by a person will little to no historian background. Though Source C is unreliable in terms of how it was written and researched, its content is reliable as it presents information that corroborates with the historical discourse of the nature of trench warfare making it highly useful for historians. It is known that the state of the terrain during trench warfare was usually muddy which led to a hazardous and arduous battleground and this is conveyed in “the remaining men had to be left under a mountain of mud as it was too dangerous to retrieve them”. This portrays the swamp-like grounds that soldiers fought on due to usually wet