Wikipedia talk:Identifying and using primary sources: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
WhatamIdoing (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 332:
:[[User:TheRandomIP|TheRandomIP]], you're correct that context matters, and it's already in the page. See [[Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources#All sources are primary for something]]. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 22:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
== Uses in fields other than history: primary/secondary gap ==
In an article about a science, between "the first publication of any idea or experimental result" and "Narrative reviews, systematic reviews and meta-analyses" there exists a large range of RS publications about follow-on results, replication, interpretation, and so forth which this criterion-description ignores. IMO, because such publications refer to and inherently comment upon prior research, these too can be cited as secondary literature so long as the editor is not creating a new synthesis (i.e. doing the work of a review or meta-analysis). Shouldn't the advice here recognize this?
<br/>[[User:Bn|Bn]] ([[User talk:Bn|talk]]) 14:47, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
| |||