No, Encyclopedia Britannica is not considered a primary source. It is a secondary source that compiles information from various primary sources.
No, an encyclopedia is a secondary source.
No, an encyclopedia is a secondary source.
The Brooklyn Bridge opened May 24, 1883. Source(s): Encyclopedia Britannica
I believe that a encyclopedia is a secondary source, because the person who wrote it most likely didn't witness every single event in it. __--FROM GENIUS--__
Basically, trial by jury was made a law. For a more reliable source of information try using Encyclopedia Britannica.
Yes, Britannica is generally considered a reliable source for research purposes due to its rigorous editorial process and reputation for accuracy.
Generally no. A primary source is firsthand experience. As in, someone who was there, saw what happened, etc. Encyclopedias are secondary sources.
Yes, Britannica is a credible source of information. It is a well-respected and established encyclopedia that has been serving as a reliable source of knowledge for both students and researchers for many years. Its articles are written and reviewed by experts in various fields to ensure accuracy and reliability.
A primary source is a piece of evidence from the time of the event/person/etc you're researching, right? So unless the encyclopedia was written at the time of the event/person/etc, it will be a secondary source. In fact, some encyclopedias are more like tertiary sources, in that they try to provide a potted version of major secondary works.
Yes, an encyclopedia is generally considered a scholarly source because it contains information that has been researched and written by experts in various fields.
A secondary source, such as a textbook or analysis, is generally not considered a primary source.
No, a review article is not considered a primary source.