u/FreeWillingness480

I consider myself a fan of history; I took plenty of college history classes, and I'm, unfortunately, also a Twitter user. When I come across a claim or someone backing up a claim with a primary source, I'll read through it and read about the context of the primary source, and from there, it can turn into a rabbit hole of me digging for information. Is this me correctly doing history? It also reminds me of when I watch "History" videos on YouTube, which are just persuasive essays essentially, for example, WhatifAltHist. I know it's foolish to reference him as a historian. Most of his sources are secondary sources from the 1960s. But would his claims necessarily be more wrong than an interpretation of mostly primary sources? My question is this the right way of doing history? How do historians critique the claims made using sources? Am I making sense?