This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Background: George’s first wife, Sarah Adams (1766-1806), is my fifth great-grand aunt. At this time, I have been researching my family for about a decade, so I am fairly confident of my research skills.
My research, based on resources on Ancestry.com, says that George’s second wife was named Lucy Franklin Read (1773-1845). Lucy had also previously been married and widowed; her first husband was Meriwether Jones (1766-1806). Lucy Jones, née Read, married George William Smith on 8 June 1808. Ancestry has two sources listed to support this:
1) Virginia, U.S., Marriage Records, 1700-1850, page 561
2) Virginia, U.S., Compiled Marriages, 1740-1850
My questions are:
Is Ancestry.com, or are certain types of records on Ancestry.com, considered a good source? I would think so, at least the first citation given here, but would appreciate confirmation.
Corollary to that, does it matter that this source is only available on Ancestry.com to those with a paid U.S. membership? This appears to be an image from an actual book, so presumably there are other, offline ways to verify the source.
Is there a standard way to cite this type of source? Ancestry.com helpfully provides “citation information,” but I am uncertain how to format it appropriately for this venue. 2600:4041:157:7A00:6096:4137:CB56:4AF5 (talk) 05:05, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
