The first fourteen steps in my process for creating entries for the Early New England Families Study Project are covered in three previous posts, beginning here:
15. Analysis. Many, many books have been written about genealogical analysis. I have just read the most recent, Bob Anderson’s Elements of Genealogical Analysis, and highly recommend it with one caveat – it is written by a left-brained genealogist. Speaking as a right-brained genealogist, I know some readers may find themselves grumbling about “overkill,” but remember that Bob is examining the process of genealogical analysis on the cellular level. (Start by reading his Preface about his “roots” in military intelligence and microbiology, and you’ll know what I mean.) The rest of us don’t need to be scientists, but we do need to be aware of all of the complex steps that go into a sound genealogical conclusion.
Analysis is naturally part of every step of the process as each draft of each sketch is formed and polished, but for this example I’m listing the questions I need to remember to ask myself when it comes to the “final” analysis that determines if the sketch is ready to publish (incorporating some of Bob Anderson’s definitions):
A. Are all facts documented? Do I have a sufficient source for every birth, marriage, death, event, deed, will, etc., that I mention in the text? Have I considered the “substance” and “reliability” of the sources? Is there a better citation I could still get?
Lacking a source, do I have a good argument for stating each fact – such as estimating date of birth from age at death?
B. Are all of the “linkages” made? If each person potentially has three genealogical linkages – to parents, to spouse, and to children – have I provided citations and/or arguments to make that connection? Do I have a rationale for every child who is listed? Have I made any “leaps of faith” that two or more records refer to the same person?
Or, in cases where the link is missing or weak, do I have a reasoned argument for leaving it that way – I am, after all, compiling a synopsis rather than attempting to answer all of the outstanding questions. If there are outstanding questions, have I included suggestions for further research by others?
C. Do I need to access more sources, consult other researchers, and/or write more logical arguments?
16. Format.
A. Have I spelled all the names and places correctly and consistently? Does Green turn to Greene every other paragraph? If I miss the names here, I can still catch them during indexing.
B. Dates. Any inconsistencies that I did not notice in earlier proofs? Died before born?
C. Grammar and punctuation. This is where the old proofreader’s trick of reading text backwards can be helpful. Are all the paragraphs indented properly? Do I have “close quotes” for every “open quotes”? Does the text read smoothly and concisely? (Hint: read it out loud)
D. Are my footnote citations correct – full and proper bibliographic citation for the first occurrence, consistent “short” citations for following occurrences?
17. Hot chocolate or ice cream?
