I think looking for primary sources is only necessary at this level when there is good reason to question the credibility of the secondary source. "Not their sp

I think looking for primary sources is only necessary at this level when there is good reason to question the credibility of the secondary source. "Not their specific field of expertise" isn't sufficient, especially when they're just citing facts and not interpreting them. I think there's a substantial difference in value between citing primary sources to refute a secondary source, versus dismissing a secondary source out of hand because it's not a primary source. (This is actually familiar ground to me; my spouse has been teaching popularized dance history lately, and I've been encouraging her to write a book on the subject, because her interpretation challenges some conventional wisdom. She doesn't want to write a book because she's too reliant on secondary sources and too lazy to go read through more of the primary source material.)