I reviewed section 11.60 of the 3rd. ed. of Evidence Explained, then tried to cast an English Probate calendar entry in a similar format (see below). Unfortunately; the ordering of the clauses in the first reference note example did not flow logically for me. I was trying to achieve 3 distinct levels; record data (what we see), source and source-of-the-source. So, I re-order things a bit. Call it exercising "artistic licence," if you will.
Could you give me your opinion as to whether this is a reasonable citation for the record?
Source List Entry
“England & Wales, National Probate Calendar (Index of Wills and Administrations), 1858-1995. ”Database with images. Ancestryhttps://search.ancestry.com/search/db.aspx?dbid=1904: 2019.
First Reference Note
Anita Organ probate, Headington, Oxon, 1979, page 6178 (microgen grid index F 18); imaged in “England & Wales, National Probate Calendar (Index of Wills and Administrations), 1858-1995,” database, Ancestry (https://search.ancestry.com/search/db.aspx?dbid=1904 : accessed 13 October 2019) > 1979 > Mullany-Osborn, image 260 of 270; citing “Calendar of the Grants of Probate and Letters of Administration ... Probate Registries of the High Court of Justice in England,” Principal Probate Registry, London, England. This is the entry for Anita Organ (died 1 July 1979), referenced from “Organ, Jessie Violet see ORGAN, Anita 790122130U” found on the same page.
Anita Organ probate, Headington, Oxon, 1979.
SIDE-NOTE: I was very fortunate to discover this record. It confirms that the aunt that my mother called "Anita" was, in fact, the "Jessie Violet Organ" contained in some of my mothers' papers.