Wikipedia:Identifying and using tertiary sources: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
SMcCandlish (talk | contribs) →Exceptions: clarification |
SMcCandlish (talk | contribs) m ce |
||
Line 21:
* Material found in university textbooks ranges from secondary to tertiary, even in the same work, but is most often tertiary, especially at lower levels and covering more basic subjects. Textbooks intended for primary and secondary schools are tertiary.
* Some material published in general [[Journalism|news sources]] (which are usually secondary) is actually tertiary, such as topical [[overview article]]s that summarize publicly-available information without adding any investigation or analysis, and sidebars of statistics or other [[factoid]]s. (Some is also be primary, such as editorials, op-eds, film reviews, advice columns, and highly subjective investigative journalism pieces.)
* Similarly, not all [[Documentary film|documentaries]] aired on quasi-nonfictional TV networks are actually secondary sources; many are tertiary, and simply summarize various views of and facts about a history or science topic, without the result being novel. Some are even primary, for any exaggeratory conclusions they reach on their own. This has become increasingly true as documentary channels
* [[Systematic review]]s in [[academic journal]]s are secondary sources, especially when they are themselves [[peer review|peer-reviewed]], despite aggregating information from multiple previous publications. The less analytic kind of academic [[review article]], the [[literature review]], may be secondary or tertiary depending on its content.
* A [[review]] in the more general sense, of a book, film, etc., may be a primary source representing the aesthetic opinions of a reviewer, a secondary analytical piece, or a tertiary neutral abstract of the reviewed work's content. Many are a mixture of more than one of these.
| |||