Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them. [d] For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research. [e] Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context. A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a ...
An account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident. Historical documents such as diaries are primary sources. [3] Secondary sources are at least one step removed from an event. They rely for their material on primary sources, often making analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or ...
They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them. [f] For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research. [g] Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context. A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a ...
Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge. Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible. Secondary sources are documents or people that summarize, analyze and/or interpret other material, usually primary source ...
A primary source can have all of these qualities, and a secondary source may have none of them. Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, not merely mindless, knee-jerk reactions to classification of a source as "primary" or "secondary".
This biography of a living person relies too much on references to primary sources. Please help by adding secondary or tertiary sources. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful.
In cases where a secondary or tertiary source and primary source disagree, it's best to quote the secondary source in the article, and note in a footnote that a specific primary source disagrees. One should not assume the primary source is correct, since the secondary source may be using a different edition or translation of the primary.
Wikipedia:Citing sources/Example edits for different methods – showing comparative edit mode representations for different citation methods and techniques; Wikipedia:Citing sources/Further considerations – additional considerations for citing sources; Wikipedia:Inline citation – more information on inline citations