How do I analyse a primary source?

For general analysis of any primary source you should first consider two main things: the nature of the source, and who wrote it and for what auidence.

The nature of the source concerns what the typr and format of the source is and how this will impact its reliability. For example, a diary entry, while highly subjective as it is from one individuals point of view, is not intended for public viewing and is this likely to be much more truthful about events and the impact on the person. A news article is tricky in that it often highlights the facts, but there will always be a political slant to it depending on the newspaper, country, and particular time period. Articles from international wars that are concerned with conflicting ideologies, such as the cold war or the Vietnam war, will always have a strong political slant and are propoganda rather than reliable evidence.

Then consider the author of the source and their place in society. How well known are they and are tied to a state or regime are they? Do they want to protect it? People will not commit thoughts to paper without reason so consider the possible motive of the author in writing the text. What reaction does he want to brong out of the audience? Political cartoons are particularly rich and useful sources as they arise in times of conflict, and often adhere to the thinking of the general public as they want to earn money (making the product appealing and so it will sell, such as the magazine "Punch").

Then you should consider how far this particular source corroborates with other sources, both primary and secondary, to assess it's utility. Ensure when comparing it with other primary sources that you compare it with different types of primary source. You are searching for inconsistencies between sources and potential explanations for these, rather than trying to find supportive sources. If two sources do agree, how strong does this make the arguement? If two drastically different sources agree from different authors at completly different ends of the power and class scale, what does this mean for what you are trying to argue? Always consider what weight the source can add to your argument. Furthermore, how does this source compare with secondary sources, which we generally deem the be factual and reliable? Although, always keep in mind when you're comparing to a secondary source that these have all been compiled using primary evidence and you are recieving the data second hand. A textbook or any work by a historian is based on their interpretation of certain primary evidence, as the same evidence can yield different interpretations.