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.
No, Encyclopedia Britannica is not considered a primary source. It is a secondary source that compiles information from various primary sources.
Email can be considered a primary source depending on the context. If the email contains original information or firsthand accounts of events, it is often considered a primary source. However, if the email is forwarding information from another source, it may not be considered a primary source.
is pericles primary source or secondary source
Yes, an article can be considered a primary source depending on the context and the information it provides.
It is a primary source because it was taken at the time.
A website can be considered both a primary or secondary source, depending on the content and context in which it is used.
The internet can be a primary source if the information comes directly from an original or firsthand account or data. For example, a research study published on a reputable website would be considered a primary source. However, if the information is a secondary source, such as a news article summarizing a study, then it would not be considered a primary source.
Palin's log of his trip is considered a primary source because it comes directly from Palin. A primary source is an original source that has not been altered.
A letter is considered a primary source because it is a firsthand account or original document created by someone directly involved in an event or topic.
With regard to history, a primary source would be considered as such if they were eye witnesses to an event, such as the Siege of Jereusalem.
Generally no. A primary source is firsthand experience. As in, someone who was there, saw what happened, etc. Encyclopedias are secondary sources.