On Which Site Provides "Best" Census Source Citations? (posted 19 June 2012), there were a number of comments:
1) Russ Worthington commented about whether any of the site source citations provided met his standards:
"'None of the above', with the exception of Elizabeth Shown Mills example. That is why I have spent my time converting ANY Citation from anywhere into the Family Tree Maker Template Format. What might be interesting is comparing FTM2012, against RootsMagic and Legacy. I would hope that they would be much closer then those provided by your Online Examples."
My comment: I thought that I had done a comparison of the different source templates in the recent past, and I was right. See:
* Creating a 1940 U.S. Census Source Citation in Family Tree Maker 2012
* 1940 U.S. Census Source Citation with Legacy Family Tree 7.5
* 1940 U.S. Census Source Citation in RootsMagic 5 - Free-Form Template
* 1940 U.S. Census Source Citation in RootsMagic 5 - Census Image Source Template
If you read each post, you will note that Legacy Family Tree 7.5 and RootsMagic 5 created source citations almost exactly to the Evidence! Explained model, but Family Tree Maker 2012 did not. The FTM 2012 citation did have all of the elements in the EE template, but in a different order.
On Russ's point, the three software programs I used above do a much better job of creating Evidence! Explained quality sources than do the online family tree websites or historical record collection providers.
For me, the key is that the citation elements be present so that the citation is useful to the reader. My preference is that they be in EE order.
2) R. Mansfield said:
"I often compose my own sources for information I've provided such as birth or death certificates. I don't have a copy of Evidence Explained because it is (1) so stinking expensive, and (2) not available in an electronic medium for which I could easily carry it with me on my iPad. I'll probably eventually buy it and scan it.
"However, I do understand the purpose and basic elements needed in a good citation since I work in academic settings. I am in school where Turabian is used and I teach where APA is used, and I constantly have to keep the two methods straight in my head. I probably think in terms of Turabian more than APA when I craft a source, but I know the essential elements necessary to go in the citation. It needs to have enough information so that someone else could find the same source. So while they may not conform toEvidence Explained, I do believe they are complete, which--to me--is the most important part."
"And why if accessed online is it required to cite where you accessed it from as well as the date? Having the microfilm info seems to be redundant. I must be missing something I guess."