Wikipedia:Identifying and using tertiary sources: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
SMcCandlish (talk | contribs) m ce |
SMcCandlish (talk | contribs) →Exceptions: clarification |
||
Line 24:
* [[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.
* Certain kinds of sources that are usually tertiary may in some instances be primary, e.g. rules published by a [[Sport governing body|sport's governing body]]
* Any tertiary source can be a primary source, when we are referring explicitly to the content of the source as such. For example, in a comparison of varying dictionary definitions, each dictionary cited is a primary source for the definitions it provides, while all of them would be tertiary sources for the meaning and interpretation of the term in question, in a more usual editorial context.
* Some usually primary types of how-to and advice material, including [[User guide|user guides and manuals]], are tertiary (or even secondary, depending on their content) when written by parties independent of the subject, e.g. the in-depth computer operating system guides found in bookstores (as opposed to the basic one that arrived from the manufacturer in the box with the computer).
| |||