[space]

Alright...

When a question asks for the reliability of the source, I know that I'm supposed to be looking at the author, date as well as the context.

For an example, a source which is a speech made by a British politician regarding the Treaty of Versaille would most probably be one-sided and thus unreliable. This is what most people would think without reading the speech yet, just based on who the author is commenting on the peace conference. However, what if whatever was said in the speech wasn't one-sided at all?

I mean usually, one is supposed to start off his answer based on who wrote the source and then go into the context and judging it based on his own knowledge, yeah? Hmm, not sure if I phrased it clearly but my concern is that the British politician for an example would most probably be thought as one-sided but what if he weren't in his speech? How will you answer the question? Do you still that it's unreliable? Or should you say something like this source should not be reliable because it's a British politician commenting on the Treaty of Versaille. However, this is not the case in his speech, he is actually fair and...?

Any help again would be appreciated. Thank you.

[MrJohnDClare]

Absolutely correct.
That is why you look at two things - one the provenance, ans second, the content.

What I would sugest is that you're simply not addressing the provenance with enough sophistication, though your post shows that you;re heading there rapidly.
It is simply not true that all British politicians were biased and anti-German, just as it is not true today that all English people like fish and chips.

Your approach is spot on. Address provenance in terms of: 'This was written by ... so at a first thought, we might expect .... However...'
Then what you ned to do is to find out more about your author. Was he a Christian man? What were his opinions in the past on this matter, in the future? Were there any surrounding factors nfluencing what he said - for instance, Lloyd Geoge was rabidly anti-German during the election, because he thought that would get him elected, but in private he was much more reasonable.
Even if the person was hugely pro-British, they might have been in the opinion that it was not in British interests to be anti-German ... that Britain needed trade etc.

There is ALWAYS a reason why people say what they say.
What you need to do as an historian is to find out what prompted that comment.
And then you will be able to say whether that comment is likely to be reliable or unrelaible.

Finally, note that in the last analysis provance will NEVER tell you whether the comment is reliable or unreliable ... it will only tell you whether it is likely to be so.
What you need to do then is to look at WHAT he said ('content'), and test it against the facts that you know.
THAT is the acid test of reliability.
Couch all your comments based on provenance in terms of may, perhaps, probably etc.