FOOD, HEALTH, AND ENVIRONMENT IN HISTORY
History 428: Questions to Ask about How Well Primary Sources Support a Secondary Source
Breadth Questions (i.e. for all the sources together)
1. Are all significant historical claims in the body of the text supported by appropriate source evidence?
(This would not necessarily apply when the author is introducing a new topic or argument; summarizing a
topic or argument just presented; or transitioning to the next topic, argument, section, or chapter.)
2. Is the range of source material sufficient and appropriate to the claims being made in the text?
3. Does the author rely too heavily on a single source or a limited number of sources?
4. Where it seems most appropriate, does the author make use of published and archival sources?
5. Does the author integrate various types of evidence in a convincing manner?
6. What additional types of sources do you think the author might have included to further support the
claims being made in the book? (Do keep in mind the limitations of what sources are likely to be
available, but, at the same time, do not hesitate to point out places in the text where the author could have
sought out more supporting evidence.)
7. Does the author rely too heavily on secondary sources, or are most claims supported with primary
sources? (In an original historical research study, often the author will use secondary sources in a limited
fashion to fill in gaps in argumentation and to provide more general background or comparative
perspective, but the majority of the sources for the key sections will typically be primary sources.)
Depth Questions (i.e. for particular primary sources examined more closely)
1. Are all quotations, paraphrases, or summaries from the primary source accurate? Does the immediate
surrounding material before and after the cited or quoted passage change the meaning in a way that you
think the author should have taken into account?
2. If you were analyzing the primary source yourself (think of all the ways you might do this: e.g.,
Author, Content, Context, Language, Intent, Meaning, Audience, Time, Evaluation) what would be some
key points you might make? Would any of these points add to or further support the claims and
arguments made by the author? Would anything you found in the source complicate, challenge, or refute
any claims made by the author?
3. What did you find in the primary source that the author doesn’t mention? Even if what you found
would neither directly support nor challenge the author’s claims, what additional insights might the author
have provided based on the other things you found by looking at the source?
4. If applicable, look at the title page, first few pages of preface or introduction, opening of the section or
chapter where the cited portion of the primary source appears, and the few pages before and after the cited
page(s). Do you see anything in these places that changes how you would interpret the source? Do any of
these things you found provide further support or challenges to how the author uses this primary source?
Did you find anything new or interesting that the author does not mention, but which might be worth
incorporating into the book? How might these new insights have changed the author’s conclusions?
5. Are there any alternative interpretations of this primary source, based on your own reading of it? Does
the author’s interpretation seem more plausible? Why or why not?
Breadth Questions (i.e. for all the sources together)
1. Are all significant historical claims in the body of the text supported by appropriate source evidence?
(This would not necessarily apply when the author is introducing a new topic or argument; summarizing a
topic or argument just presented; or transitioning to the next topic, argument, section, or chapter.)
2. Is the range of source material sufficient and appropriate to the claims being made in the text?
3. Does the author rely too heavily on a single source or a limited number of sources?
4. Where it seems most appropriate, does the author make use of published and archival sources?
5. Does the author integrate various types of evidence in a convincing manner?
6. What additional types of sources do you think the author might have included to further support the
claims being made in the book? (Do keep in mind the limitations of what sources are likely to be
available, but, at the same time, do not hesitate to point out places in the text where the author could have
sought out more supporting evidence.)
7. Does the author rely too heavily on secondary sources, or are most claims supported with primary
sources? (In an original historical research study, often the author will use secondary sources in a limited
fashion to fill in gaps in argumentation and to provide more general background or comparative
perspective, but the majority of the sources for the key sections will typically be primary sources.)
Depth Questions (i.e. for particular primary sources examined more closely)
1. Are all quotations, paraphrases, or summaries from the primary source accurate? Does the immediate
surrounding material before and after the cited or quoted passage change the meaning in a way that you
think the author should have taken into account?
2. If you were analyzing the primary source yourself (think of all the ways you might do this: e.g.,
Author, Content, Context, Language, Intent, Meaning, Audience, Time, Evaluation) what would be some
key points you might make? Would any of these points add to or further support the claims and
arguments made by the author? Would anything you found in the source complicate, challenge, or refute
any claims made by the author?
3. What did you find in the primary source that the author doesn’t mention? Even if what you found
would neither directly support nor challenge the author’s claims, what additional insights might the author
have provided based on the other things you found by looking at the source?
4. If applicable, look at the title page, first few pages of preface or introduction, opening of the section or
chapter where the cited portion of the primary source appears, and the few pages before and after the cited
page(s). Do you see anything in these places that changes how you would interpret the source? Do any of
these things you found provide further support or challenges to how the author uses this primary source?
Did you find anything new or interesting that the author does not mention, but which might be worth
incorporating into the book? How might these new insights have changed the author’s conclusions?
5. Are there any alternative interpretations of this primary source, based on your own reading of it? Does
the author’s interpretation seem more plausible? Why or why not?
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1veBZPSsMaO-KVPtWgD2dgFPhhht8uE0T/edit
What Students Are Saying About Us
.......... Customer ID: 12*** | Rating: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐"Honestly, I was afraid to send my paper to you, but you proved you are a trustworthy service. My essay was done in less than a day, and I received a brilliant piece. I didn’t even believe it was my essay at first 🙂 Great job, thank you!"
.......... Customer ID: 11***| Rating: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
"This company is the best there is. They saved me so many times, I cannot even keep count. Now I recommend it to all my friends, and none of them have complained about it. The writers here are excellent."
"Order a custom Paper on Similar Assignment at essayfount.com! No Plagiarism! Enjoy 20% Discount!"
