Merge pull request #138 from chnm/blog/taba

Updated figure captions

bom-website/content/blog/2024-09-10-ambiguous.md

@@ -43,29 +43,29 @@ If I would continue my search, I would go back into the bills for references to
 
 The example I just described should give you a sense of my workflow. Typically, it is rare for me to find memorable deaths, so most of my pauses deal with issues in texts. Sometimes, they are more complicated than I initially assume. For instance, the screenshot below is of a bill I recently transcribed dating back to the 1<sup>st</sup> of April of 1746.[^9]
 
-{{< figure src="/images/taba-image6.png" caption="Figure 6. Bill from April 1, 1746" alt="Bill from April 1, 1746" >}}
+{{< figure src="/images/taba-image6.png" caption="Figure 6. A section of a bill from April 1st, 1746 with what look like handwritten comments on it" alt="Figure 6. A section of a bill from April 1st, 1746 with what look like handwritten comments on it" >}}
 
 I remember my initial reaction to the section I highlighted in the screenshot above. I saw the Xs and assumed someone wrote them because there was a mistake in the printed numbers: the two and three on the left of the horizontal lines are incorrect. That means that the zeros to the right are correct and there were no deaths in Trinity and St. Foster parishes. After consulting other members of the Death by Numbers team, however, I abandoned my initial interpretation and went with the two and three to the left of the horizontal lines.
 
 In retrospect, I learned something important working through this transcription issue: I need to be more careful when interpreting handwritten comments. I know nothing about the person who wrote them. Looking at the image of the entire bill below, I do not see any information about the anonymous commentator.[^10] How can I confirm that that person is a reliable source on the deaths in Trinity and St. Foster?
 
-{{< figure src="/images/taba-image4.jpg" caption="Figure 7." alt="" >}}
+{{< figure src="/images/taba-image4.jpg" caption="Figure 7. The entire bill from April 1st, 1746" alt="Figure 7. The entire bill from April 1st, 1746" >}}
 
 Moreover, why should I feel confident about how I interpreted the comments. Why am I assuming that one person made them? There may have been two commentators, one who wrote the Xs and one who wrote the zeros. I can imagine different scenarios in which they wrote their comments. Maybe the first commentator wrote the Xs to highlight that there was an issue in that part of the bill. Then later, a second commentator wrote the horizontal line and the zeros to correct the bill. Alternatively, the second commentator may have written the Xs to indicate that the first commentator’s zeros are incorrect. Unfortunately, this is the only time I have seen Xs like this in the bills, so I do not have previous examples on which to rely.
 
 Now that I have shared an example of my thought process, let me shift focus to you. Earlier I mentioned that I have three examples for readers of this post to transcribe. My hope is that you will get in touch with me with a reply.
 
 1. The first example comes from a bill from 1717 that looks like it may have been altered.[^11] Note how the numbers in the red box in the screenshot below seem to be much clearer and sharper than the other numbers on the page. Is that a coincidence from the quality of the digital scan or the original document, or did someone touch them up? In other words, does the image indicate the numbers are originals or did someone change them?
 
-{{< figure src="/images/taba-image1.png" caption="Figure 8." alt="" >}}
+{{< figure src="/images/taba-image1.png" caption="Figure 8. Are the numbers in the red box originals or have they been touched up?" alt="Figure 8. Are the numbers in the red box originals or have they been touched up?" >}}
 
 2. The second example is from a bill from 1741.[^12] Is the number in the red box in the screenshot below a 16 or a 19? Did 16 or 19 people die in the parish?
 
-{{< figure src="/images/taba-image9.png" caption="Figure 9." alt="" >}}
+{{< figure src="/images/taba-image9.png" caption="Figure 9. Is that a 16 or a 19?" alt="Figure 9. Is that a 16 or a 19?" >}}
 
 3. The third example comes from another bill from 1741.[^13] What are the numbers in the red box below? Do you think they are handwritten or printed?
 
-{{< figure src="/images/taba-image7.png" caption="Figure 10." alt="" >}}
+{{< figure src="/images/taba-image7.png" caption="Figure 10. Are those numbers ones, twos, threes, eights?" alt="Figure 10. Are those numbers ones, twos, threes, eights?" >}}
 
 Finally, here is the list of strategies I mentioned earlier. I compiled them based on my experience transcribing the bills on my own and my conversations with the Death by Numbers team.
 
@@ -87,9 +87,7 @@ Finally, here is the list of strategies I mentioned earlier. I compiled them bas
 [^5]: December 26<sup>th</sup>, 1676 (1676-02-Bodleian)
 [^6]: March 13<sup>th</sup>, 1665 (Bodleian-1665-13)
 [^7]: March 13<sup>th</sup>, 1665 (Bodleian-1665-13)
-[^8]:
-         “Royal Foundation of St Katharine,” Wikipedia, August 28, 2024, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Foundation_of_St_Katharine#References.
-
+[^8]: “[Royal Foundation of St Katharine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Foundation_of_St_Katharine#References.),” Wikipedia, August 28, 2024.
 [^9]: April 1<sup>st</sup>, 1746 (1746-16-Laxton)
 [^10]: April 1<sup>st</sup>, 1746 (1746-16-Laxton)
 [^11]: September 10<sup>th</sup>, 1717 (1717-39-Laxton)