How Would You Fix These Citations?

 

 

Years of teaching an advanced-level research methodology class has taught me at least one thing. Many researchers are great at following citation manuals but are totally lost in the thickets without one. Can you, without cracking EE, tell us what the problems are in each (or any) of these?

     1. Whatever County, Court of Common Pleas, Abstracts of Judgments, 1800-1840, no pg. number, microfilm 103.

     2. Noble, John. Criminal Trials in the Court of Assistants and Superior Court of Judicature, 1638–1700. Cambridge: John Wilson and Son, 1897. Page 8. Citing “M.C.R., page 99.”

     3. Virginia Land Office Patent Book 10, reel 10,1710-1719:57.

     4. Compiled Service Record of John Q. Public, Civil War; National Archives, Washington, D.C.

     5. Bordeaux (Gironde), France, Notarial Acts of Bois de Fauquier, for Jean Durel–Cécile Le Brun marriage contract, doc. 3E 12185, Archives Départementales de Gironde, Bordeaux.

Of course, if you really want to pull out your copy of EE and refresh your memory, that’s okay, too.

 

Update, 7:00 p.m.

Emy, Dave, and Yvette have caught most of the problems, from one perspective or another. I'll paste in, here, the comments I prepared when I created the questions:

 

1. Whatever County, Court of Common Pleas, Abstracts of Judgments, 1800-1840, no pg. number, microfilm 103.

Problems:

  • What state?
  • What date for the court session? (Without this, how could anyone find the record amid that 40 year span?)
  • Is that alleged 40-year span accurate? (That’s a lot of court actions for just one volume.)
  • Whose “microfilm 103." (Presumably, it’s unpublished preservation film. If so: Who created it? At what library or archives is it used? Is there a series name and/or number?)

See EE’s chapter 8, numerous examples,  or QuickCheck Model, p. 380, example for Cornwall, England.

 

     2. Noble, John. Criminal Trials in the Court of Assistants and Superior Court of Judicature, 1638–1700. Cambridge: John Wilson and Son, 1897. Page 8. Citing “M.C.R., page 99.”

Problems:

  • The citation is a mish-mash of “source list entry” and “reference note” formats. (If the intent is to create a source list entry for a book, then we would not be citing a page number. If the intent was to create a reference note, then we would not invert the author’s name and we would not put periods between every element. We’d be writing it “sentence style.”
  • As Emy noted earlier today, if it is possible to reliably identify the meaning of “M.C.R.” from the information given by the author, then we should add that explanation in editorial brackets.

See EE 12.2 “Publications ... Basic Citation Forms: Source Lists vs. Reference Notes”

 

     3. Virginia Land Office Patent Book 10, reel 10, 1710-1719:57.

Problems:

  • Who is the grantee?
  • What is the date of the grant?
  • Whose microfilm has been used? (See bullet 4 under Note 1 above. Same problem.)
  • The page number of the book should come immediately after the book's identification. A number cited after the roll of microfilm should be the microfilm frame number.

See EE 10.16 “State or Colony Grants: Bound Volumes”

 

     4. Compiled Service Record of John Q. Public, Civil War; National Archives, Washington, D.C.

Problems:

  • What is the identifying info for the soldier? (Standard format for citing military records from the U.S. National Archives calls for placing after the name, in parentheses, the soldier’s rank, company, regiment, and war.)
  • What is the NA collection and record group? (Both of these pieces of information are essential for original documents at NARA.)

See EE 11.32 “U.S. National Archives ... Military ... Compiled Service Records”

 

     5. Bordeaux (Gironde), France, Notarial Acts of Bois de Fauquier, for Jean Durel–Cécile Le Brun marriage contract, doc. 3E 12185, Archives Départementales de Gironde, Bordeaux.

Problem:

  • What is the date of the contract?
  • Is it a loose original document or an act in a register? (If the latter, as is likely, then the alleged “document number” would appear to be the register number at AD-G, in which case we also need, at least, the specific act number within the register.)

See EE 7.39 “Church Records ... France”

 

Blog Term

Submitted byEmyon Tue, 01/28/2014 - 08:12

1.  I would add the state, a date for the record (if available), and give information about the original files that were microfilmed.

2.   I would explain what "M.C.R." meant.

3.   I would put the page number after the book, not after the date range.  I would give the date of the patent and the names of the person(s) to whom the patent was granted.

4.  I would give more information to identify John Q. Public, e.g. his regiment and company, etc.

5.  I would give a date for the document.  

 

 

Submitted bydsliesseon Tue, 01/28/2014 - 13:32

Can't give complete answers without seeing the original documents.  However, speaking as one who might want to follow the citations:

1.  Agree with Emy about the state.  Where do I find the microfilm?  Is a frame number available, at least?

2.  Isn't it conventional for publisher information to be put in parentheses?  I have no trouble with "Page" being spelled out (in fact, I prefer it, modern shortcut preferences notwithstanding, just as I always include the word "County" in full place names).  Modifying Emy's comment slightly: if the meaning of "M.C.R." is known, then it would be nice to have it spelled out here.  If that's all that's known from the original citation, though, then not much we can do!

3.  Again, agree with Emy on the page number.  As with #1, it's incongruous to say Book 10 Reel 10.  Where do I find the reel?

4.  I'm sure the record has a lot more identifying information available.

5.  I'll agree that the date would help.  I also have a nagging feeling that there is something else missing, but not being familiar with this archive or record set I have no idea what it might be.

Aside from doing whatever it takes to make a citation easy to read, I tend to not get hung up on exact structure (unless, of course, such is being dictated by an editor or a professor).  I do want enough information to find the source myself (which is half the purpose of the citation, the other half being to show that you do, supposedly, have something to back up your assertion).  What's most important is to use a consistent style throughout your work.

You're right, Dave. We can't give an accurate citation without seeing the details of the source. (EE's "answers" to the test questions aren't given in the form of a "correct citation" for the same reason.) The issue here is this: When we read a poor citation in someone else's publication or manuscript, we need to be able to do just what you've done—look at it and make a decision as to how much and what kind of information is needed before we can begin to evaluate its reliability.

Regarding "exact structure," sometimes it does matter, as in Emy's no. 3 comment—the issue here being that details that go together like book:page need to stay together for clarity.

Submitted byyhoitinkon Tue, 01/28/2014 - 14:01

Leaving EE on the shelf, here's my thoughts without reading the other comments:

  1. I'm missing the state or country, the description of the item consulted, the location where the original record is and whether this was a published microfilm (in which case I would want to know the publisher) or not (in which case I would want to know where it was consulted).
  2. Which Cambridge? Massachusetts or England? What does M.C.R. mean (it's probably explained in the book somewhere. The style with the periods suggests this is for a source list, but then I would not expect a page number since source lists tend to be generic and leave the specific references to the individual citations. 
  3. At what repository was this document consulted? I would separate the record creator (Virginia Land Office) from the record (patent book) by a comma. And I would be very surprised is patent book 10 was enough to find out which county or township the patent was for, so I suspect that information about the location is missing but I'm not familiar with Virginia land records to guess the structure. "Reel 10" suggests this was a microfilm, in which case I once again would like to know if this was published or not and include details about the publisher/repository.  
  4. I'm missing a lot of information here: record group, call number, description of the series. 
  5. I'm missing the date for the marriage contract and a proper description of the series or book that that was found in. Just 'notarial records' is too general, most notaries have several different types of records so you need to know which particular file  this contract was found in. I imagine it could have been a bound volume, or a package of contracts, or even just the repertoire that mentioned the contract and not the contract itself (but that would be a totally different citation). I would also separate the description of the document from the archives with a semicolon instead of a comma to make it clear which parts of the citation logically go together. 

After now having read the comments, I stand by my analysis. We've all uncovered many of the same problems. I agree with dsliesse that the frame number for the microfilm would be helpful.