A journal can be considered a secondary source when it analyzes, interprets, or summarizes primary research findings rather than presenting original data or firsthand accounts. For example, a review article in a scientific journal discusses and synthesizes results from multiple studies, providing context and commentary. In this way, it relies on the primary sources of the original research but does not contribute new experimental data itself.
It depends. If it is your journal, or you are quoting from a journal you have actually seen, then no. A secondary source would be a newspaper report of that journal entry, for example. Unless the journal entry is stating something read or seen elsewhere, then it WOULD be a secondary source.
a work in which a writer has collected and interpreted the ideas of other writers.
a textbook, encyclopedia or an interpretation of a diary/ photo unless it is from that specific time period it is a secondary source
General Grant's Journal is a primary source. A primary source is an eye witness. It is what the person who was there actually saw. Such accounts are extremely important because they give a feel for the era. A secondary source would be what you would hear if one of your parents told you what they heard about World War 2. They would be passing on a story. Also, Jefferson Davis, the president of the Confederacy, also wrote his memoirs. If someone took Grant's Journal and Davis' Memoirs and made a book, that would be a secondary source. Still, it might give a better overall picture of the war. So a primary source is one written by someone who saw what was going on.
This is a secondary source.
No, an encyclopedia is a secondary source.
A. A newspaper article is most likely to be a secondary source as it typically reports on information gathered from primary sources such as research studies or interviews.
It is a secondary source.
secondary
Secondary source
an newspaper article will be an secondary source
Magazine articles are secondary sources