Wikipedia:Identifying and using tertiary sources: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
SMcCandlish (talk | contribs) →Exceptions: clarification |
SMcCandlish (talk | contribs) →Exceptions: clarification |
||
Line 25:
* 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]] (primary but high-quality source) versus found in a compendium of sports and games (tertiary and low-quality, because likely to be outdated and to be missing details).
* 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 exact wording of the definitions it provides (e.g. if we want to quote them directly), while all of them would be tertiary sources for the meaning and interpretation of the term
* 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).
* An abstract prepared by the author[s] of a journal paper is a primary source, like the paper itself.
| |||