If you have the Washington Post article link for the New France ancestry of those famous women, then please do insert that one, or add it. 

 It is perfectly fine to used the same source more than once in an article, if the source supports more than one point. It is recommended. If it is exactly the same source, then Wikipedia has a shorthand for that, using the ref name notation. If it is a book with pages and the pages are different, then the source needs to be copied with the correct page number for each point to be supported. 

 I do not know what you mean by broken links. If you mean a dead link, the Wikipedia term for url that goes nowhere, the simplest first step is to mark the link as a dead link between two sets of upper case curly brackets { twice dead link } twice. A bot will come around and add the date to the dead link. Then people watching the page can hunt for live references or see what went wrong with the link. If you mean something else, like a typo, then why not just fix it? 

 Your concern about the Mayrand site seems odd in the context of Wikipedia, which is asking for improvements constantly. The family data used, members of the Cloutier family that emigrated from France to New France seems correct, matches other sources, so why not? The mention of the US Social Security Death Index as a source in the tree looks like something that shows up on every page of a large tree, even if it was not used for the family shown. It is a new and reliable source for US deaths since Social Security began, and the family who made the tree and is descended from Zacharie Cloutier emigrated from Canada to the US in the early 20th century, I believe. One problem with English Wikipedia articles on New France settlers is that the best sources are in French, and it is good to have both the text and the sources of an article in English Wikipedia in the English language. As better sources arise, then those will be used. Some of the articles begin as translations from French Wikipedia (e.g. Olivier Charbonneau) and editors work on finding more English-language sources. It seems you are new to this, based on the list of contributions you have made since August 2014, and you do not have your own talk page set up yet. 

 Sorry you were offended that I reverted your changes, all but one. Removing references without giving those who did write the article (I did not write it, but I read it) a chance to correct what you cannot easily correct yourself is rushing ahead too quickly, especially when you do not have other references to put in place of what you remove in whole. I have added the authors and date written for a couple of the sources, as the initial editor did not take as much information from the source as possible.