Adding in some details

Cryptoref, you have a keen eye for issues that affect how we identify a source. Let’s walk through those issues, item by item, for all who appreciate the fine points. First, I'll paste in your draft citation, adding color to separate the layers:

          1. New York State Department of Health, death certificate no. 13638 (1929), John M Grawrock; Division of Vital Statistics, Albany; copy at FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/photos/artifacts/96178386?cid=mem_copy ); certificate no. obtained from New York State death index, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSGD-937Z-8 ), image 472 of 1379, FHL film 104,132,622.

You have (or intend to have) three layers:

1. Details about the original document
2. Details about the copy posted online
3. Details about where you went to find the certificate number.

Within this framework, there is some fuzziness that could be made clearer.

Layer 1: Issue 1

Your layer 1 actually has two layers, each separated by a semicolon—which is the same mechanism you use to separate layer 1, layer 2, and layer 3. So, do you have four layers? Or three layers that need clearer punctuation?   

The problem here is created by the fact that you’re making a switch from (a) the example at EE 9.41, which is a basic citation to a manuscript document held by a government agency or archive; to (b) a citation to multiple things in multiple locations.  

When we create a complicated citation sentence, it’s good to remember atwo-part rule we were taught back in fourth grade for the use of semicolons:

• Items in a series are separated by commas.
• If any of those items have internal commas, then we use semicolons to separate the major items in the series. 

Following this rule, after you added the other two layers into your citation sentence, clarity would call for altering either the punctuation or the organization of data in layer 1 so that layer 1 is not itself split into two layers. Using your draft, EE would do this:

      1. New York State Department of Health, Division of Vital Statistics (Albany), death certificate no. 13638 (1929), John M. Graw Rock [Grawrock]; …

Note also the difference in the way his name is rendered. The cited name should be that used in the document itself. If we wish to identify the “correct” spelling, then we add that in square editorial brackets.

Layer 1: Issue 2

Layer 1 is supposed to be the data you are eyeballing on that document—the data you can confirm for yourself. Yet, as you point out, your document does not have a certificate number. That means the death registration number that you acquired elsewhere should not be part of layer 1. From that standpoint, EE’s layer 1 would be this:

          1. New York State Department of Health, Division of Vital Statistics (Albany), unnumbered death certificate, 1929, John M. Graw Rock [Grawrock]; …

Layer 1: Issue 3

In citing a record that’s in someone’s possession, two issues are critical: location and provenance.  EE 9.41 shows a basic citation for a death certificate that we ordered from an agency and hold in our possession. In whatever piece of writing we do, using this citation, we identify ourselves as the author. Thus, readers have a chain of custody for the document by which they appraise the authencity of the data. We are telling them that the document went directly from Agency to Author. If an alteration has been made, it would have occurred while under the supervision of the Author.

In this case, your layer 1 cites the document without identification of the holder of the document. Your layer 2 tells readers that an image is at FamilySearch. That leaves a break in the chain of custody for that document. It was not FamilySearch that created the image and it is not FamilySearch that is responsible for its integrity. It’s you.

All points considered, EE’s layer 1 would be this:

…. New York State Department of Health, Division of Vital Statistics (Albany), unnumbered death certificate, 1929, John M. Graw Rock [Grawrock], copy issued [year] to [name]; …

Layer 2

For identification of the online image, your draft offers this:

… copy at FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/photos/artifacts/96178386?cid=mem_copy );

Again, the issue of provenance is at play. Your layer 2 says that a copy is there, but there’s a broken link in the chain of custody if you do not identify the person who uploaded the document.  Experienced, analytical users of FamilySearch will be able to parse the components of the URL and understand that the certificate is not part of a batch that FamilySearch created directly from the Division of Vital Statistics. However, most users of the site will simply think, “Oh, how wonderful, FamilySearch gives me a copy of the certificate!"  To clarify the provenance of the online image, EE would suggest this:

… image posted 2019 by [name] to “John Martinius Gravrok (17BL-W8M),” FamilySearch FamilyTree (https://www.familysearch.org/photos/artifacts/96178386?cid=mem_copy ).

Layer 3, Issue 1

The source you cite in this layer is an entirely different source from the one you cited in Layers 1 and 2. Here, you present a diverse set of details: (a) your discussion, (b) the online provider and location; and (c) the provider’s source-of-the-source information. Therefore, EE would move your Layer 3 into a separate citation sentence.

Layer 3, Issue 2

Your draft tells us this:

... certificate no. obtained from New York State death index, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSGD-937Z-8 ), image 472 of 1379, FHL film 104,132,622.

Rather than a generic ID of your source, EE would use the exact title of the FamilySearch database, “New York State Death Index, 1880–1956." Agencies, archives, and online providers often have multiple databases with similar titles but different data. Yes, you give a specific URL for the specific document, but we all know how often URLs change, and even an ARK cannot be guaranteed to last forever. Identifying exactly the database will help relocate the right source if this current link goes bad.

EE’s version of your layer 3 would be this:

... “New York State Death Index, 1880–1956,” FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSGD-937Z-8 ), image 472 of 1379 images on digital film 104,132,622, assigns death registration no. 13638 (1929) to its entry for John.

You’ll also notice that I altered your “FHL film 104,132,622.”  FHL does has microfilm, but the number you are citing is not an FHL microfilm. It’s a FamilySearch “digital film” number.

 

Final result:

Reassembled, the citation would be this:

          1. New York State Department of Health, Division of Vital Statistics (Albany), unnumbered death certificate, 1929, John M. Graw Rock [Grawrock], copy issued [year] to [name]; image posted 2019 by [name] to “John Martinius Gravrok (17BL-W8M),” FamilySearch FamilyTree (https://www.familysearch.org/photos/artifacts/96178386?cid=mem_copy ).  “New York State Death Index, 1880–1956,” FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSGD-937Z-8 ), image 472 of 1379 images on digital film 104,132,622, assigns death registration no. 13638 (1929) to its entry for John.