How to Analyze a Record in the FamilySearch Family Tree: Part One -- The Initial Review

This record of Dr. David Shepherd Jr. has no supporting sources in the FamilySearch.org Family Tree website. Although the information appears to be detailed and complete, without sources, everything here is open to question and revision. Further, there is nothing showing that this person is even my relative. The titles of "Dr." and "Jr." make the entry look more certain, but where are the records that would support either designation?

The idea here is to carefully examine and analyze the information in the Family Tree for consistency, supporting sources, reality, and believability. It is also important to make sure the dates and places are standardized and that the places reflect the names of the locations at the time of the events. This process may seem difficult and time-consuming, but with practice, you can spot the problem areas almost immediately.

Some things in the Family Tree readily tell me that no one has been working on this entry with any degree of knowledge of the Family Tree or with any sophistication in genealogical research. They are also indicators that the information may be incomplete or inaccurate. This is both good and bad. It is good because that means that I have an opportunity to do some research and possibly add names to the Family Tree and bad because the amount of clean up necessary is probably overwhelming.

Of course, the first indication of a lack of involvement is the lack of sources does not automatically mean that the information is not correct. Research may support the entries or change them.

The lack of sources even more significantly shows that this entry has, so far, been neglected because there is a whole page of Record Hints waiting to be processed.

Here is the present status of Dr. Shepherd's family.

The blue icons show the availability of Record Hints. The purple icons indicate that there are no records and the red icons show serious data errors. It also appears, from the temple icons,  that someone has come through this part of the Family Tree and harvested the "green icons" but has yet to complete the temple work.

As I examine the entries further, I see a long list of alternate "Birth Names."

This is one of clearest indicators of the lack of attention to these entries. As I have written many times, these "Birth Names" are a remnant from the historical contributions to FamilySearch and its predecessors over the past hundred years or so. They are usually either inaccurate or duplicative. In some cases, not apparent here, these entries should be modified to reflect nicknames or other real alternative names. But in their present form, they should be deleted.

If you are unfamiliar with any of the procedures to work with the Family Tree at this level, I suggest you refer to The Family History Guide for step-by-step instructions.

Why do I care? My experience has shown that as I become involved in doing research on these parts of the Family Tree, I will inevitably find additional missing ordinances and individuals and can add them in.

So, the first steps are almost too obvious: standardize and clean up the entries and then evaluate and add in all of the available sources if the Record Hints turn out to be valid. Focusing on Dr. Shepherd, this is exactly what I started to do. Remember to correct or add in any information found in those sources.

Where did all this information come from if there are no sources? I am aware that there is a surname book about the family but at this point, I have yet to discover a copy anywhere. I speculate at this point that any such book has likely included this Vermont family in with Shepherds from Virginia or elsewhere, but perhaps not.

I intend to "clean up" this family and report on my progress. Stay tuned.