Update on Documenting May Drollette's 1934 Arrival

Readers of Casefile Clues who get into the citations will notice that there's one passenger list citation from issue 20 that does not provide NARA numbers. The citation for the 1934 manifest entry indicates that I used Ancestry.com, but the NARA publication information (which should be included in the citation and which is included in the other citations) was missing. It was not an oversight. 


The NARA film information was not on the Ancestry.com site. It wasn't just my in ability to find it. 


That information is from microfilm serial # is M1465, Roll #9.


My contact at Ancestry.com tells me the "powers that be" (my phrase, not my contacts) are aware of the problem. 


I was just glad that it wasn't me and I'm glad that Ancestry.com is working on the problem. 


Speaking from personal experience the more you cite, the easier it becomes and the more little things you notice. 


Now, do you have to cite your own materials exactly the way we do in Casefile Clues? I may get kicked out of the genealogy club here, but I'm going to say no. The important thing is that you clearly indicate:

• what you used
• what format it was in
• how you accessed it-original, microfilm of original, digital version of microfilm, etc. 

On all the manifest entries in issue 20, we didn't just say "passenger manifest" and give the date and name of the ship. That might imply I saw the actual manifest, which I didn't. I didn't just say I used the microfilm, because I didn't. The indication was that I used the digital version of the NARA microfilm that Ancestry.com has on their site. That way someone else who sees my citation can decide if they want to access a different version that may be more legible, show markings in color, etc. etc. 

Remember--Casefile Clues is about more than citations--request a sample by emailing samples@casefileclues.com or subscribe today!