Hi, Rob, You are correct. For additional information, take a look at the Publication Manual (6th ed.) at p. 182. My colleague Tyler did a post about just this topic. Take a look: http://blog.apastyle.org/apastyle/2012/12/how-to-cite-different-groups-of-authors-with-the-same-lead-author-and-publication-date.html

Hi, Jana: I think possible part of your question is missing (there's a reference to a "first question" that I'm not seeing), but based on this, I'm extrapolating that you're asking if the initials are correctly placed for the in-text citation? Yes! You are correct. See Section 6.14 on p. 176. You are also correct about the second point. Only the first authors need to be distinguished. The purpose of the style point is to enable the reader to find the correct citation in the reference list quickly, and only the first is germane here. Though if you had two references with two authors in the same order and also completely different people, I would extrapolate that you'd use initials. But don't worry. I've never seen that happen in 20 years of editing.

Hi, Natalie, Take a look at Rule 6.25. The order is one-author entries by the same author are arranged first and by year of publication. References with the same first author and different second or third authors are arranged alphabetically by the surname of the second author (or if the second author is the same, the third, and so on). In your list, as the first citation is one author and Fodor comes before Foss alphabetically, the order is correct. Hope that helps.

Antonia, My apologies! I somehow never saw this comment. I'm afraid there's not really an answer to your question specifically addressed anywhere in the Style manual. The options would be to research until you found the names (and raising the question of what to do if they were different authors who happened to have the same names). This is the sort of issue that an author id would resolve, if that ever becomes an industry standard. In the meantime, I think one would have to distinguish in text.

Interesting you should ask. I was just trying to remember that myself yesterday. The rule is "if two or more publisher locations are given in the book, give the location listed first or, if specified, the location of the publisher's home office" (p. 187).

Good eye for catching that! We have fixed it in later printings of the 6th edition.

Hi, Vickie: Perplexing, isn't it? Fortunately, the 6th edition of the Publication Manual has addressed this very issue. Although usually a researcher would use just initials in the reference list, in a situation like this, the rule (section 6.27) is if the reference list includes different authors with the same surname and first initial, the authors' full first names may be given in brackets. So your list would be Smith, L. [Larry] followed by Smith, L. [Lawrence].

I hate to disagree with an answer key, but I'd say that the strictly correct answer is a. Let me embellish a little more: back in earlier versions of the manual, we did have a rule that said "Use a combination of figures and words to express a. rounded large numbers (starting with millions)." That rule no longer exists in the 6th edition. Presumably it was eliminated in an intent to streamline and simplify the rules. In the absence of that rule, a purist would say, 3,000,000 is demonstrably a number over 10 and by our existing rules should be set as a figure.

Same thing here, I'd think. Though, considering it, I can see why it's confusing. The time is actually specific, it's when something occurs not the boundry that changes. These are actually instances in which I'd probably go with "two years" but I'd also accept the logic of someone who felt "2 years" was better. There are shades of gray in Style issues :)

Yes, within two years is approximate. So your example is correct.

The stated rule is to represent time and dates by numerals. The exception is only for approximations. Your examples all give specific times and thus all require numerals. If you changed them to approximations that rule would change, for example, "about two days" or "about three years."

You're right. It should be "a way" and it should be elusive. Thanks for catching that. And thanks as well to the tweeter who pointed it out my error (and quoted Weird Al Yankovic) in the process. It has brought about the need for a post on homonyms. Please send your favorites.

Hi Sarah: Because you are not citing a specific document or image available from this website, and instead are just providing readers with a product description listed on the home page, it is sufficient to just give the website’s URL in the text without providing a citation or reference. Therefore, your sentence should be formatted along the following lines: ULTA’s Beauty Destination feature was described as, “Your connection to expert beauty advice and the season’s hottest looks” (see http://www.ulta.com/). Hope this helps.

Yep. Definitely against APA Style. The rule is to alphabetize by the first author's surname followed by initials of the author's given name.

In instances in which there is no author, the title moves to the author position. Here's a link to our FAQ that addresses just that situation: http://www.apastyle.org/learn/faqs/web-page-no-author.aspx On the second issue, you leave the author order as is. Keep in mind that the authors have often given a lot of thought as to who will be the "lead author," and they've often also negotiated as to who will be the last. If you altered the order, you'd have both annoyed authors and a strange-looking reference list. You have lots of A-H entries at the beginning of the alphabet and the poor P-Z group would be woefully underrepresented.

Dennis, First, my apologies. I thought I'd replied to this a few days ago but must have confused the intent for the act. Your suspicion that the Publication Manual does not address the situation where people actually change their names is correct. Section 2.02 does address the issue of publication name by recommending that to assist researchers and librarians, researchers use the same name form throughout their careers. A similar sort of problem exists in the increasingly common situation when more than one person has the same name. One day the scientific community will probably develop some sort of an author identification system that resolves these kinds of issues, but until then, there will be situations where identify may need to be addressed in the text itself if an exact identity seems necessary.

I'm afraid this is one of those areas where the answer is an unequivocal "it depends." As it's being used here, the term "gray literature" covers a wide variety of sources, and the way a given source is cited depends on the stability of the source. Your question is, will my reader be likely to find this later in the same place I did? If not, a date gives a snapshot of what you found at a given date and time. So, some specifics from the Manual. Technical and research reports are regularly published and usually kept by an agency. They'll be there. Only a year is needed. But what about an archival document? They typically do get more information, year, month, and day (see Rule 7.10), because that may help to locate the item with reasonable ease in the repository. The same is true of less-formal Internet communications, like blog posts and messages to listservs. There, an exact date is very helpful in finding the source.

Chapters fall under 4.31(f), which states (among other provisions) that numbers that denote a specific place in a numbered series and parts of books are set as numerals. So, yes! By all means set chapters as figures.