Answer the following question: “What makes something a good secondary source for history research?” by Alan Witt

Secondary Sources

2026-03-04 17:27:04 UTC

A good secondary source is something that properly cites the information it is pulling from, is peer reviewed and edited by experts, and has a clear and properly defended argument.

Secondary Sources

2026-03-04 17:29:00 UTC

In my opinion a good secondary source pulls from multiple sources and perspectives, provides helpful insight into the topic, has counter arguments and explains their perspective, has clear citations and subheadings to help navigate, as well as coming to new conclusions not just regurgitating information.

Not 100% sure

2026-03-04 17:30:00 UTC

Secondary Sources

2026-03-04 17:31:38 UTC

A good secondary source for history research is a paper or journal that includes multiple perspectives about a topic with a substantial amount of evidence. It has a clear argument that is easy to follow and heavily supported throughout the piece, it also should be reviewed and edited by other scholars.

Secondary Sources

2026-03-04 17:32:11 UTC

A good secondary source is basically one that you can trust to interpret the past clearly and with real evidence behind it. It helps you make sense of your primary sources instead of just repeating them.

Good Secondary Source

2026-03-04 17:32:21 UTC

To me, a good secondary source provides the basis for the argument they are trying to prove. It is a scholarly article with proper citations for its information. These secondary sources include analysis and opinions, not just clear-cut information.

Secondary Sources

2026-03-04 17:32:50 UTC

A good secondary source provides a good analysis on a topic and has good citations that actual add depth to the writing. It also provides a clear argument that adds to the primary sources and helps create new ideas within the subject.

Secondary Sources

2026-03-04 17:32:55 UTC

For a secondary source to be considered "good" it needs to have a defensible argument that is original to the author, while also countering any possible disagreements. The source would consist of a wide array of evidence that supports the author's argument, and the source should be peer-reviewed or through an academic institution.

Secondary Sources

2026-03-04 17:33:33 UTC

A good secondary source for history research is peer reviewed, has proper citations, uses evidence from primary sources, and has an overall good and well written argument, that can be understood and defended.