We all learn the rules. We have to cite our sources. The problem is that it has become too easy for us to add a couple of source citations and think that the job is done.
But the job is not done if the sources cited do not provide sufficient evidence for your conclusions.
Source citations do not guarantee quality family history
Modern genealogy software and online platforms make adding source citations quick and simple. Click a button, attach a source, and you’re done. This ease of citation has created a false sense of security. Many researchers assume that because they’ve added citations, their family history is accurate and well-documented.
This assumption is dangerous.

If you examine any online family tree, or even your own family history documentation, you’ll quickly discover inadequacies in how sources support the conclusions drawn. The more you look, the more problems you’ll find.
Common Citation Problems
These inadequacies fall into four main categories:
Including extra information not found in the cited sources. You record information that isn’t actually in the documents you’ve referenced.
Recording information differently than it appears in the sources. You interpret or alter what the source says instead of recording it accurately.
Omitting important information from the cited sources. You cherry-pick details while ignoring other information in the same document.
Dismissing discrepancies between sources. When multiple sources disagree, you choose one without acknowledging the conflict or explaining why you chose one over the other.
These problems stem from two causes. Sometimes you have additional sources to support your conclusion but simply haven’t cited them. Other times, you’ve reached hasty conclusions based on insufficient evidence.
Either way, these errors undermine your research process and mislead others who rely on your work.
The Real Problem: Analysis is Neglected
By focusing on adding source citations and making the citation process easy, we risk not conducting sufficient analysis to determine whether our sources and conclusions are correct.
Citations without analysis create an illusion of scholarly rigor. They suggest your conclusions are well-supported when they may not be.
Common Errors in Practice
Here are three frequent mistakes that demonstrate how citations can mislead.
Errors in Dates
Common mistakes include:
- Recording a full date when cited sources only mention the year
- Stating a year without clarifying it’s an approximation.
Example: You record your ancestorโs birth date as 9 Jan 1852 and cite the 1851 English census. This citation doesnโt support your conclusion. The census provides an age in a particular year, from which you can calculate an approximate birth year. This is indirect evidence for the year, but no evidence is provided for the day and month.
Census ages are often approximate. In some cases, such as the 1841 English census they’re deliberately rounded โ though application of that standard is variable.
Another example: You record your ancestorโs birth date as 22 Feb 1875 and cite the NSW Births Deaths and Marriages index. This citation doesnโt support your conclusion. Full dates are only supported by the actual certificate or a transcription has been obtained and cited. Indexes may state just the year, or a quarterly period.
The Solution: Find sources that contain the actual full date, such as baptism records that often list both baptism and birth dates. Alternatively, be precise about what your sources say. If the civil registration index shows “May-July 1866,” record exactly that.

Errors in Locations
Common mistakes include:
- Recording where an event was registered instead of where it occurred
- Recording an associated event’s location instead of the actual event (baptism location as birth location, burial location as death location)
- Inconsistent approach to recording location name changes
- Including location errors from sources without noting the discrepancy.
Example: Your ancestorโs birth certificate states that he was born in Spicers Creek NSW Australia, but the birth was registered in Wellington NSW Australia. You record the location as Wellington, but this misleads both you and other researchers.
The Solution: Use the event location when available. Put registration details in your notes. For location name changes, I suggest using current names with historical variants noted.
Errors in Names
Common mistakes include:
- Choosing one name, without recording the variations and the sources that contain the variations
- Not realising that a difference in name may indicate that the cited source relates to a different person
- Recording middle names that arenโt stated in the cited sources
- Forgetting to record a woman with her maiden name.
Example: You record your great grandmother as Sophia Jane Squires, but that is her married name. Change it to Sophia Jane Webb and cite her marriage certificate or her baptism record, if available.
The Solution: All name variations and middle names need sources that specifically provide evidence for that exact variation. Record all variations you find, but ensure each has proper citation support. Choose one version as the primary name and cite at least one source using that exact version.
Why These Details Matter
Names, dates and locations are the building blocks of family history research. Even small errors can lead to:
- Including wrong people in your family tree
- Researching in the wrong places or time periods
- Overlooking significant inconsistencies in your information.
Good quality family history must be accurate, comprehensive, and well-documented. This means ensuring you have cited sufficient evidence to support each conclusion.
Putting it Into Practice
Here’s how to audit your own work:
Create a simple table with four columns: Information, Sources Cited, Issues, and Sufficient Evidence?
Choose one grandparent from your family tree. Examine their name, birth, and death information. Look for discrepancies between what you’ve recorded and what your cited sources actually say.
My Example: Maternal Grandfather Analysis

This analysis revealed that my death date and location lack proper source support. I need to obtain additional sources.
Your Next Steps
Repeat this analysis for each grandparent and then move backwards through the generations. You could conduct this analysis as part of your Tree Health Assessment.
Where you find insufficient evidence, you have two options:
- Find additional sources to support your conclusions
- Modify your recorded information to match what your sources actually say.
Remember: source citations are the foundation of quality family history, but only when those sources actually support the conclusions you’ve drawn from them.
Quality research requires both good sources and careful analysis of what those sources tell us.
For more tips on source citations, see Chapter 5 of my book, The Good Genealogist, and my blog post, Citing Family History Sources.
About the Author
Danielle Lautrec is a genealogy educator, researcher, and author of The Good Genealogist. With qualifications in history, family history, and historical archaeology, she teaches for the Society of Australian Genealogists.













