| Course | MPH 599 Professional Writing |
|---|---|
| Week | 6 |
| Paper type | Reference list reconciliation |
| Length | About 960 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Chamberlain University |
| Program | Master of Public Health (MPH) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MPH 599 Week 6
Reference List Reconciliation: Checking Every Citation in My Grade Card Paper Draft Against Every Entry, in Both Directions
Student Name
Chamberlain University
MPH 599: Professional Writing
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Reference List Reconciliation: Checking Every Citation in My Grade Card Paper Draft Against Every Entry, in Both Directions
What Was Checked and How
This reconciliation covers the first full draft of my short scholarly paper on whether Larkin County, a composite county used in this course, should post restaurant inspection grades at entrances. The draft is about 1,500 words with 14 in-text citations and 7 reference list entries. I checked in both directions. First, I listed every in-text mention, with its location, and looked for a matching entry. Second, I listed every entry and looked for at least one mention. A match required the same authors, in the same order, the same year and, where a page was cited, a page within the source's range. I followed the style manual's rules on agreement between citations and entries (American Psychological Association, 2020).
The Worked Table
Table 1
Two-Way Reconciliation of Citations and Reference Entries
| Source | Mentions in draft, with location | Entry in list | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jones et al., Tennessee inspections | 3: paragraph 2, paragraph 5, conclusion | Present, year 2004 | Matched |
| Jin and Leslie, grade cards | 2: paragraph 3, paragraph 6, both with year 2004 | Present, year 2003 | Not a match: year differs |
| Simon et al., Los Angeles hospitalizations | 3: paragraphs 3, 4 and 6 | Present, year 2005 | Matched |
| Wong et al., New York letter grades | 4: paragraphs 4 and 6, table note, conclusion; all with year 2014 | Present, year 2015 | Not a match: year differs |
| Scallan et al., foodborne illness estimates | 0: cited sentence was cut in revision | Present | Orphaned entry |
| U.S. Food and Drug Administration, model food code | 0 | Present | Orphaned entry |
| County environmental health division, inspection data | 2: paragraph 5 and table note | Absent | Unresolved mention |
Note. Note. Locations refer to the first full draft; all problems were repaired in the second draft.
Orphaned Entries
Two entries had no mention. The Scallan et al. (2011) estimates of foodborne illness had been cited in an opening sentence that I cut when I shortened the introduction, and I forgot to remove the entry. I restored a shorter version of the sentence, because the paper needs one line on the scale of foodborne illness, and kept the entry. The model food code entry was added early as background and never cited. Since no claim in the paper rests on it, I removed the entry rather than adding a citation to justify it.
Unresolved Mentions
The draft cited the county's environmental health division twice for local inspection data, but no entry existed. The data are composite figures built for this course rather than a published report, so an entry would point to nothing a reader could find. I removed the citation and added a sentence to the methods paragraph stating that county figures are composite and constructed for the exercise. This is the honest repair; inventing a reference entry for unpublished figures would be worse than the original error.
Matches That Are Not Matches
Two sources appeared in both lists but did not match. The draft cited Jin and Leslie with the year 2004, while the entry, correctly, gives 2003, the year of the journal issue (Jin & Leslie, 2003). I had taken the wrong year from a secondary source. The draft cited Wong and colleagues with the year 2014, the year the article appeared online, while the entry gives 2015, the year of the print issue (Wong et al., 2015). I chose the issue year for both and corrected every mention. These are the errors a quick look at the reference list misses, because each name appears on both sides.
What the Reconciliation Will Not Judge
This check does not judge whether each source supports the claim it is attached to; that is a separate reading of each paragraph against each source. It does not check formatting within entries, such as italics or DOI form, beyond the elements needed to match. And it does not decide whether the paper has enough sources. Keeping these out of scope stopped the reconciliation from turning into a general edit.
Repairs Logged as Changed Lines
Table 2
Repairs Made After Reconciliation
| Draft location | Before | After |
|---|---|---|
| Paragraph 3 | Jin and Leslie, year 2004 | Jin and Leslie, year 2003 |
| Paragraph 6 | Jin and Leslie, year 2004 | Jin and Leslie, year 2003 |
| Paragraphs 4 and 6, table note, conclusion | Wong et al., year 2014 | Wong et al., year 2015 |
| Paragraph 1 | No sentence on illness burden | One sentence citing Scallan et al. |
| Reference list | Model food code entry | Removed |
| Paragraph 5 and table note | County division cited for data | Citation removed; composite data stated in methods |
Note. Note. Each repair is visible as a tracked change in the second draft.
What I Will Do Differently
Two habits caused most of the problems: adding entries as I read rather than as I cite, and taking years from secondary sources. From now on I will add an entry only when I write the citation, and I will take the year from the journal issue on the publisher's page. Simon et al. (2005) and Jones et al. (2004) matched on the first check because I had read and cited both directly, which supports the change.
How Long the Check Took
The full two-way check took about 50 minutes for a paper of 1,500 words: 20 minutes to list mentions, 10 to list entries and 20 to compare and repair. That is little against the cost of the errors it found, two of which a reader would have met on the first page.
References
American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.). https://doi.org/10.1037/0000165-000
Jin, G. Z., & Leslie, P. (2003). The effect of information on product quality: Evidence from restaurant hygiene grade cards. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(2), 409-451. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355303321675428
Jones, T. F., Pavlin, B. I., LaFleur, B. J., Ingram, L. A., & Schaffner, W. (2004). Restaurant inspection scores and foodborne disease. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 10(4), 688-692. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid1004.030343
Scallan, E., Hoekstra, R. M., Angulo, F. J., Tauxe, R. V., Widdowson, M.-A., Roy, S. L., Jones, J. L., & Griffin, P. M. (2011). Foodborne illness acquired in the United States: Major pathogens. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 17(1), 7-15. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid1701.p11101
Simon, P. A., Leslie, P., Run, G., Jin, G. Z., Reporter, R., Aguirre, A., & Fielding, J. E. (2005). Impact of restaurant hygiene grade cards on foodborne-disease hospitalizations in Los Angeles County. Journal of Environmental Health, 67(7), 32-36.
Wong, M. R., McKelvey, W., Ito, K., Schiff, C., Jacobson, J. B., & Kass, D. (2015). Impact of a letter-grade program on restaurant sanitary conditions and diner behavior in New York City. American Journal of Public Health, 105(3), e81-e87. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2014.302404
The Chamberlain MPH 599 Week 6 instructions
Week six asks you to reconcile the in-text citations in a draft with its reference list. Check in both directions: every mention needs an entry, and every entry needs at least one mention. Record each source in a table with its mentions, their locations, the entry and a verdict, such as matched, orphaned or unresolved. Look for matches that are not matches, where author order, spelling or year differ between citation and entry. Explain how you repaired each problem, and log each repair by location so a reader can check it. State what the reconciliation does not judge. Finish with the habits that caused the errors, so the next paper avoids them.
How this MPH 599 Week 6 example is built
The reconciliation covers a 1,500-word draft with 14 citations and 7 entries. A worked table lists seven sources. Jones and colleagues and Simon and colleagues match. Jin and Leslie and Wong and colleagues are cited with years that differ from their entries, one taken from a secondary source and one from an online-first date, and both are corrected to the issue year. Scallan and colleagues and a model food code entry are orphaned; the first is restored with a shorter sentence and the second removed. County data cited without an entry are revealed as composite figures, so the citation is removed and the methods say so. A second table logs every repair.
MPH 599 Week 6 rubric: what full points look like
The most costly defect here is an entry listed and never mentioned, because a marker can find it without reading the paper at all. Running the check in one direction only leaves half the failures standing and shows in the document, where one column is thin. Matches accepted on author names alone, despite a differing year or spelling, are the next weakness. Repairs described vaguely, without locations, and reconciliations that drift into general editing also lose points. Strong reconciliations check both directions in a worked table, catch near matches, repair each problem honestly, log changes by location, state their scope and name the habits behind the errors. Inventing an entry to cover an unpublished source is worse than the original error.
MPH 599 Week 6 help from the desk
Reference reconciliation is tedious, which is why errors survive to the final draft. If you share your draft and reference list, we can help you build the two-way table, find orphaned entries and near matches and decide how to repair each one honestly. We can also help you log repairs by location so your instructor can check them. Your paper and its sources remain your own. If you use a citation manager, we can explain where its exports tend to introduce mismatches, such as online-first years or missing initials, so you know which entries to check by hand. We can also show you how to run the check in a few minutes on later papers, so it becomes routine rather than a last-minute rescue.
Get a MPH-599 Week 6 example written to your instructions
Send the draft that needs reconciling together with the wording of the assignment, and a custom MPH-599 Week 6 example comes back inside 24-48h, the first one free. Where your section supplies a deliberately broken document to fix, send that file and the table is worked against its actual errors rather than against invented ones.
More MPH 599 papers and MPH samples
- MPH 599 Week 1: Writing Habit Post
- MPH 599 Week 2: Baseline Writing Sample
- MPH 599 Week 3: Paragraph Architecture Exercise
- MPH 599 Week 4: Paraphrase and Citation Exercise
- MPH 599 Week 5: Tone and Register Edit
- MPH 599 Week 7: Short Scholarly Paper
- MPH 599 Week 8: Revision Memo
- MPH 598 Week 6: Support Network Map
- MPH 500 Week 6: Stakeholder Analysis
- MPH 515 Week 6: Hypothesis Testing Exercise
- MPH 503 Week 6: Coalition Strategy Write-Up
MPH 599 Week 6 questions, answered
Does this assignment rate the sources themselves?
It does not, and blurring those two jobs is a reliable way to lose the reasoning marks. Deciding whether an item is scholarly, current or trustworthy is separate work with its own assignments. Here every source is accepted exactly as it stands, and the only finding available is whether the body and the list tell the same story about it.
What happens to a source I consulted but never used?
It comes out of the list. A reference section records what the argument actually used, not what the writer consumed getting there, so a work read and never drawn on belongs in your own notes instead. Where the reading genuinely shaped a claim, the repair runs the other way: put the mention into the body where that claim sits.
The entry looks correct but its DOI opens a different article.
Then the row fails, and finding it is worth more than the entry itself. A link copied from the wrong tab is invisible to any check that only compares names and years, which is why the finished version opens every one. The repair is a corrected link, logged as a changed line like any other fix on the page.
Where can I find a free MPH 599 Week 6 sample paper?
You can read the complete MPH 599 Week 6 two-way reconciliation of a paper's citations and references on this page.
What near matches does the MPH 599 Week 6 sample find?
Two sources cited with years that differed from their entries, one from a secondary source and one from an online-first date, both corrected to the issue year.