It depends!! If the article was about an event happening AT THE TIME, then it would be considered a primary source. If the article was talking an event that had already happened quite some time ago, then it would be considered a secondary source.
The only exception I can think would be like if someone was giving a /personal/ account of an event quite some time after the event actually happened. That would still be considered primary, bc the person talking was directly involved and their account would not have changed whether they gave it 2 minutes after what happened or 20 years. //ignoring the facts of memory and bias jdjkkek
if the source was created at the time the event in history was occurring (in your case if the event happened around 1905) it's primary if the source was created after the time of the event (in your case say the thing in history you're studying actually happened in the 1600s or something) it would be secondary