Record Copy

Jeff, you asked:

1. Would EE cite this per the QuickCheck Model for "Local Records: Vital Records Register" (for layer 1)? 
2. Does this source qualify as a record copy and simply use the QuickCheck Model?

Jeff, yes and not necessarily.  With regard to question 1, there's also 9.43 that specifically deals with New England Town registrations of vital events.

Re question 2: It's good that you are analyzing your sources so carefully. The book you describe is not "the usual," but it is also not uncommon. Many times, past clerks have recopied older registers that were damaged by age; then, once the copying was done, they and their successors would proceed to use the rest of the register for current entries.  The entries therein will be partially derivative (in which case the original may or may not have been preserved) and partially original.

JeffH13, your Layer 1 works fine—i.e.

Kennebunk, Maine, "Births, Marriages, Deaths - Town of Kennebunk", marriages section, p. 87, entry no. 10, Melvin F. Wormwood & Jennie Stevens, 1871;

 Problems begin with Layer 2. 

; … database record "Maine Marriages, 1771-1907", FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/search/collection/1674915 : accessed 28 July 2021), imaged in digitized film (DGS) 7595725 ("Town and vital records, 1727-1892") > image 201; …

Four issues here:

1. This layer begins by citing “database record …” It ends by citing an image number.  So what do we intend to cite here?  Is it your intent to cite a) the actual image of the document or (b) that “database record”? (Incidentally, when doing historical research, we should not use the word “record” for materials that would not be called a “record” in the world of historical research. What you used in this case is FamilySearch’s "database entry" or (more precisely) the data page generated by its database. However, a derivative data page with an “extract-plus-other-stuff” is not on the par with an actual record.  Reliability-wise, there is a mile-wide chasm between a derivative and the original record, and everything we do in genealogical research depends upon reliability. Toward that end, it helps us to be careful about the precise words we use to describe an item.)
2. Using your URL we do not get to either the “data page” or the image. The URL takes us to a search query box; but your citation does not tell us the search terms you used to arrive at the image. Much later in that layer, you use one path marker (>) but you cite only one item on the path: the image number. We still have a gap to fill to get from your cited URL to that image number. Fortunately your groom had a unique name that enabled us to use the search box efficiently, but even that did not take us the actual image. It only took us to the “data page.” We have to go to yet another part of the FamilySearch website to find the image.
3. The page to which the search engine sent us (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:F4F6-PY5) does not actually link us to the image. Instead it tells us that the record is somewhere on browsable film. When we click the link for that browsable film, it takes us to a new URL (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QSQ-G9NW-RK5?mode=g). There, your “image 201” does work.
4. All this still leaves, unexplained, one title you placed in quotation marks after the film number: “Maine Marriages, 1771–1907.”  If you are citing FamilySearch’s artificially created data page for Melvin F. Wormwood’s marriage, then that title is the title of a named database called “Maine Marriages, 1771–1907"; but it's not the title of the film to which you attached this title. If you are citing the image, then FamilySearch’s browsable film is not part of a named database.  (When the film we are using is integrated into a named database, FamilySearch will cite that database name and path on a bar across the top of our screen that carries the image; it's just above the bar that reads <  Image ___ of ___ >.  In this case, you’ll notice that the bar above the image number tells us nothing but the digital film number.)

So, what would EE cite: data page or actual image? Since you’ve used the image, EE would cite the image. If, on the other hand, you were not able to access the imaged original for some reason and the data page was all that was available to you for the time being, then that is what you’d cite. Citing the image would create this Layer 2:

; imaged by FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:F4F6-PY5 : accessed 28 July 2021), digital film 007595725 > image 201;

I suspect that what you were trying to do here is to recreate, in your citation, the whole process you went through to find the image. But let's look at it another way: If you were citing a record in a brick-and-mortar archive, would you cite all the process you went through to find that record? No. You'd make a clear and direct citation to the exact record you used.  With online images, that has an added advantage. If you cite the exact "ark," you or anyone else can go straight to that iamge without re-expending all the time that it took to find the image in the first place.

Your Layer 3 consists of:

; … citing Town Clerk’s office.

When I examine the film, I do not see a citation to the repository. This digital film was made from an earlier microfilm  (FHL no. 11326) which begins with a target created by the filmers that reads: “Town of Kennebuck, York County, Record of Births – Deaths Marriages,” but it does not cite the office. The next frame of the film says that it was microfilmed by the Genealogical Society of Utah, Salt Lake City, “At Kennebunk, ME” on July 25, 1956, but again it does not identify the office. Given what we are provided, a more precise layer 3 would be this:

…; imaged from GSU microfilm 11326, 25 July 1956.

All in all, EE’s citation (putting each layer in a different color) would be this:

Kennebunk, Maine, "Births, Marriages, Deaths—Town of Kennebunk," marriages section, p. 87, entry no. 10, Melvin F. Wormwood & Jennie Stevens, 1871; imaged by FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:F4F6-PY5 : accessed 28 July 2021), digital film 007595725 > image 201; imaged from GSU microfilm 11326, 25 July 1956.

You’ll also notice three wee tweaks in red, made for these reasons:

• To separate the parts of the unpunctuated title of the original volume, you appropriately used commas for the three items in a series (Births, Marriages, Deaths). But then you faced a need for some punctuation between those three items and the last piece of information: “Town of Kennebunk.”  You used a hyphen. However, the function of a hyphen is to connect two words to create a compound word. What’s called for here (if you do not use a colon or semicolon) would be a dash. See EE 2.65, Dashes vs. Hyphens.
• The titles of publications, including website titles, go in italics. (EE 2.68 and 3.26, 1^st para. of p. 127)
• Commas go inside quotation marks (not just EE but all style/writing guides in U.S.)

Hope this helps.