AI Citations: Fast Drafts, Not Always the Finished Product

This AI-created citation got the place of death and the source completely wrong. I provided the screen clipping from Ancestry.com and URL, then asked for a citation in Evidence Explained style. This was the result:

“Vermont, U.S., Vital Records, 1909–2008,” database with images, Ancestry (https://www.ancestry.com/search/collections/61834/records/218119 : accessed 8 May 2026), death record for Luther K. Rawson; citing Vermont Department of Health.

One of the places where AI has saved me the most time is with citations.

That may sound like a small thing, but citations can take a tremendous amount of time. Sometimes my source list on a blog post is longer than my post. Between census records, probate files, deeds, newspapers, cemetery records, family papers, digital images, and archive collections, a short post can still require a long list of careful source citations.

A page from my OneNote citation database

Before using AI, I had already created what I thought was a pretty efficient system. I kept citation examples and formats in OneNote, copied the closest match, and edited the details to fit the record I was using. Compared with building each citation from scratch, that felt like a real time saver.

And it was.

But AI has made the process even faster.

Now, instead of starting cold or hunting through my saved examples, I can give AI the information I have and ask it to help shape the citation. Often, it gets me very close very quickly. 

But there is an important “but.”

AI-generated citations still need to be checked. Carefully.

Sometimes the issue is small. I may want to change a word, adjust the format, or add a missing detail. Sometimes AI leaves a blank because I did not give it enough information, and that is fair. It cannot cite what I did not provide.

Other times, though, I have found glaring mistakes. The example at the top of the post is exactly why I check. AI identified the wrong database and placed the death in Vermont, even though the record was for a death in New Hampshire.

That has not made me stop using AI. I still love it for citations. It saves me a tremendous amount of time. But I treat every AI citation as a draft, not a finished product. A helpful draft. A fast draft. Sometimes even a very good draft. But still a draft.

If you would like to learn more about the families I research, follow my Facebook page, where I share each post along with other genealogical finds.

Diana

© 2026

ChatGPT, response to prompt requesting an Evidence Explained-style citation from a screen clipping and URL for Luther K. Rawson’s Ancestry death record, 8 May 2026; privately held by author.

“New Hampshire, U.S., Death Records, 1678–1974,” database with images, Ancestry (https://www.ancestry.com/search/collections/61834/records/218119 : accessed 8 May 2026), entry for Luther K. Rawson, died 8 January 1876, Croydon, Sullivan County, New Hampshire; citing New Hampshire Division of Archives & Records Management, Concord, New Hampshire, “New Hampshire Death Records, 1650–1969.”