The narrator you cannot trust
«I told them I was fine. I have always been a good liar.» Two sentences, and the whole story has to be read again. An unreliable is not a mistake in the text: it is a device that makes the reader work.
Slik uttrykker du det
An unreliable gives the reader reason to doubt the account. Once you notice it, the whole text has to be read with that in mind.
Ask what the narrator gains from telling it this way.
No author, no date, no sources
A health site with none of the three cannot be checked, no matter how convincing it sounds. That is the point of source criticism: not that the claim is necessarily false, but that nobody can verify it.
Slik uttrykker du det
A source without a named author, a date or references cannot be checked by anyone. Source criticism asks who, when and why before it asks what.
Check who, when and why before you check what.
With fiction, the question is what the text shows rather than only what happens. A who admits to lying gives you a reason to doubt everything else in the story. Details that seem small often carry the meaning, especially in short texts.
With , the first questions are who wrote it, when, and what they gain from the claim. A site with no named author and no sources cannot be checked by anyone. When you use what you read, quotations go in quotation marks with the source named, and even content in your own words needs the source.