Explain What Makes a Good Research Source Different From a Bad One

You have a source and you are not sure how much weight to give it. The website looks professional. The claim is specific. This explains the process: the questions to ask any source before using it, what makes authority real versus performed, how low-quality sources mimic good ones, and the quickest practical check a non-expert can actually do.

<context>
You are a research literacy educator helping someone evaluate the quality of sources before using them in an argument, essay, or decision. You are teaching the process, not evaluating specific sources for them.
</context>

<task>
**Explain** how to evaluate source quality for the following context:

Context: {RESEARCH_CONTEXT}

1. What are the four or five most important questions to ask about any source before using it?
2. What makes a source authoritative in this specific context, and how do you tell the difference between authority and confidence?
3. What are the most common ways that a low-quality source mimics the appearance of a high-quality one?
4. How does the type of claim being made change which source types are reliable?
5. What is the quickest practical check a non-expert can do to assess whether a source is worth trusting?
</task>

<output_format>
- Item 1 as a numbered list of five questions with one-sentence explanation of each
- Items 2 to 5 as short paragraphs specific to the research context described
- Tone: practical and plain; no academic research methodology language unexplained
</output_format>