Mike,

“Some use very formally structured Source Citations based on the Elizabeth Shown Mills book ‘Evidence Explained’.“ should read “formally structured Source Citations based on the Elizabeth Shown Mills book ‘Evidence Explained or the advice from Strathclyde University.” And there are other citation standards out there...

Other than that, your question: ‘which Best Practice’ is very apposite.

If somebody wants to follow Best Practice, the first question is ‘whose best practice?’ One of the certification/accreditation bodies? – and which one might depend on where you live (or not) – Board for Certification of Genealogist? Accredited Genealogists? Qualified Genealogists?

Or ‘best practice’ based on advice from users of Family Historian?  Which is a mixed bag... Some of the users on this mailing list advocate data-entry methods that are a bit idiosyncratic.  Others suggest more mainstream methods. You’d do best to wait for a number of responses before deciding what to do.

Your first question should be: ‘who am I researching for?’

If the answer is ‘me and my family’ then you should be looking for ways of working that are simple and easy to understand. You probably don’t want to go down the Elizabeth Shown Mills route (advanced templates), but the Strathclyde route (Essential Templates) would make more sense.

If the answer is ‘I want to publish my research and receive universal acclaim’ (as if that would ever happen) then you might take a different path...

That hinges on what you consider ‘best practice’ to mean.

Some users just record minimal Source Citations for key events.

Others create multiple facts from one source document and add the same Citation to each one with attached images and transcriptions.

Some use very formally structured Source Citations based on the Elizabeth Shown Mills book ‘Evidence Explained’.

The FHUG Knowledge Base tries to cover all angles, and Source Citations are just one topic.

Which of the above fit your concepts of ‘best practice’?