Confusing wording
On Clark Woodard Wright, 26KN-26P, under Source consistency comes this message:
"This person's sex does not match the information found on Martha Ellen Monnette in entry for Clark Woodard Wright, "Ohio, County Births, 1841-2003"."
So I looked at the birth record (this record was created well after his birth), which is a attached three different times (a cousin did this, not I) and on each document Clark has a sex denoted by M, the father is listed a George Wright, the mother listed as Martha Ellen Wright.
Since he's listed as a male in all three databases, where is the conflict that they system has singled out? If the error is that the form doesn't list Martha's sex, well she's denoted as the mother. Again, what's going on?
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/sources/26KN-26P
Comments
-
In one instance, the birth registration is cross-threaded with the record of father George attached to mother Martha. That's what the PQS is calling out for not matching the sex.
1 -
I guess what I am not getting is the wording that came from PQS. But I would never have thought to look for that on George because ot doesn’t indicate George. Just Martha, and Clark. So could the PQS wording be improved?
So what is the next step? Just dismiss it?
0 -
I would fix it. It should not be attached that way. That's what the PQS is telling you - the record is attached to the wrong person.
0 -
Aine is correct, this is what I see:
Click detach and remove Clark from the record for Martha.
I will put the issue for the wording in the que
1 -
Thanks Rhonda. I just think the wording in the wording should point to the problem and not be a word salad. Ex. “Record may not be attached in the correct manner to the people involved.”
1 -
When I got into it, there was another record that was also attached to other people incorrectly. Fixing that reduced the number of attached birth records from three to two. The whole thing looks much, much better. Thanks for the help in finding the problem, and Rhonda, thanks for submitting the wording issue!
1 -
@monnettohio At your suggestion we have reworked the source consistency issues to have the source title set apart from the rest of the sentence. Hopefully the issues are more understandable now.
1
