Is Francis D Cogliano's “Was the American Revolution Inevitable?” a primary source? If yes, why?

This piece is not a primary source. In history, a primary source is a source from the actual period being studied. In other words, it is written (or otherwise created) by a historical figure from the time. Francis Cogliano is a historian and professor at the University of Edinburgh. Because he is our contemporary, and not a contemporary of the American revolutionaries, this article is good example a secondary source. This is a source that provides commentary on a historical event from a modern (or later) perspective. Generally, secondary sources written by historians use primary sources, as well as the works of other historians, to comment on an event in history. The argument made by Cogliano, namely that American independence was more or less inevitable given the different motives and mutual misunderstandings on both sides in the imperial crisis, draws on the work of many scholars (many of whom do not agree with him). In fact, Cogliano's article is a fairly handy summary of scholarship on the American Revolution.