Identify the record and the problem

Start with the exact page and the kind of problem. State Library Victoria’s catalogue guide distinguishes broken links, image problems and proposed catalogue corrections. Its feedback tool captures the page URL, so the guide asks readers to open the relevant record before reporting it. Adapting that approach to Punjabi history, record the article URL, section and sentence, then supply a proposed replacement and a precise source locator. An upside-down image, a mistaken date and an interpretation you dispute need different explanations. The guide also distinguishes feedback from a service that provides a personal reply.[1]

Preserve the source’s own wording

Separate a transcription mistake from an apparent error in the historical document. Smithsonian guidance asks transcribers to preserve original spelling and grammar, while allowing a separately marked correction to a misspelled name for discovery. It also distinguishes uncertain readings from genuinely illegible text and directs unfamiliar-language questions into notes. For a proposed Punjabi-history correction, give the source’s wording alongside your reading and explain any uncertainty. Modernising a spelling silently would hide the evidence being checked. If your suggestion depends on a translation, identify it rather than presenting its wording as the original document.[2]

Describe an access failure separately

A source that will not open presents a different problem from a demonstrably inaccurate claim. The University of Sydney Library asks unresolved-access reports to include the full resource title, identifying details, the link used and the route taken to reach it. This helps staff investigate the correct item. Follow that documentary habit when reporting an archive link: identify the edition or catalogue record, explain what failed and distinguish a missing page from a blocked connection. A failed visit does not establish that the cited passage is false. A useful report makes the next check possible without overstating its conclusion.[3]

Sources & notes

Source records include access dates and, where known, limits on what was examined. Checks used AI assistance; independent human or specialist review has not been completed.

  1. State Library Victoria. Catalogue feedback ↗institutional guide · Source date: Guide updated 29 July 2026 · Locator: Record URL, feedback types and response policy. Accessed 2026-11-02.Catalogue-feedback instructions inspected; report outcomes not assumed.Return to Identify the record and the problem, paragraph 1 ↑
  2. Smithsonian Transcription Center. How to Transcribe ↗institutional guide · Source date: Not established · Locator: Style Guide: spelling, illegibility and unfamiliar languages. Accessed 2026-11-02.Public-reader guidance inspected; direct retrieval returned 403.Return to Preserve the source’s own wording, paragraph 1 ↑
  3. University of Sydney Library. Broken links ↗library guide · Source date: Not established · Locator: Unresolved problems: identifying details, URL and access route. Accessed 2026-11-02.Reporting requirements inspected; account-specific access conditions vary.Return to Describe an access failure separately, paragraph 1 ↑
Help improve this entry. Suggest a correction with a source.
Record PH-JOU-0099 · English edition · human review not performed