This page holds a finished UNIV-102 Week 4 reference entry check, an entry set against the item it names so that each field can be confirmed or corrected from the source. Searches like "univ 102 week 4 assignment example", "univ102 week 4 sample" and "univ-102 week 4 example" land here.
What a finished UNIV-102 Week 4 reference entry check looks like
Two columns of attention run through this one: the entry as it was given, and what the item actually says. A finished check walks the fields in the order the entry prints them. The author line is set against the byline, including whether a listed author is a person or a publishing body. The year is set against the copyright date printed on the item and against any later revision stamp. The title is copied off the item itself and not off a search result, which is where a subtitle usually disappears. The container names the journal, not the database the item was reached through. Volume, issue and page range come off the item itself. The identifier is tested by using it, and an address that only works inside a signed-in library session is flagged.
How a UNIV-102 Week 4 example is structured
Templates and manuals differ between sections and editions, so the value in the order below is the direction of checking, which runs from the item to the entry and never the other way. Open the item first and keep it open. Take the entry's fields one at a time and ask, for each, where on the item that information lives. Fields with no home on the item are the findings: a page range invented for an online-only piece, a year copied from the search screen, an author initial that belongs to somebody else with the same surname. Record each mismatch beside the corrected field so the marker can see both. Close with the entry rewritten clean, and with one line saying which fields could not be confirmed and why. That last line is graded.
The direction of checking
Questions run from the item toward the entry. A check that starts from the entry and hunts for rules to apply will confirm errors it should have caught.
The author line against the byline
Names are read off the item, initials included, and an organization printed where a person was expected is recorded as a finding rather than as a gap.
Dates that disagree
A copyright line, a stated revision and the year already in the entry can all differ. The check reports which one it took and where it sat.
Container, not database
The journal or site that published the work goes in, never the service the item was reached through, which is the substitution graders see most often.
An identifier that resolves
A digital identifier is checked by using it. An address that works only inside a signed-in session is noted as one, since the marker may not have that session.
What could not be confirmed
The closing line lists any field the item would not settle. Naming an open question scores better than a confident entry built on a guess.
Where marks go in UNIV-102 Week 4
The characteristic loss in this week is a check performed entirely on the entry: commas moved, italics added, capitals adjusted, and the item never opened once. It looks like work and answers none of the question. Not far behind is the export accepted as truth, where whatever the database offered was pasted in and compared against nothing. Correction without comment costs too, since an entry repaired in silence shows the marker a result and hides the checking that earned it. Lower down: a missing author recorded as a defect when the publishing body is the author, a field called wrong where the item itself is ambiguous and no note says so, and a rewritten entry that repairs six fields and reintroduces one.
Get a UNIV-102 Week 4 example written to your instructions
Send the entry your section gave you, along with the item behind it and any instructions attached, and a UNIV-102 example is written against that exact pair. It arrives inside 24-48h and the first one is free. Where the assignment supplies a sheet to fill in, send that too and the sample follows it.
UNIV-102 Week 4 questions, answered
What happens when the item and the database record disagree?
The item wins and the disagreement is written down. Catalog records are typed by people and inherited between services, so a wrong year or a truncated title can travel a long way. A finished check names both versions, says which one the item itself carries, and lets the marker see that the writer noticed rather than silently picking one.
Does the reasoning have to show, or is the corrected entry enough?
In most sections the reasoning is the graded part. A clean entry handed in alone proves only that somebody produced a clean entry, while a short note beside each change shows where the information came from. Where the assignment supplies a form with a comment column, that column is usually worth more than the entry printed above it.
Does this check work the same way on a web page?
The order holds and the fields shift. A page has an author or a body behind it, a date somewhere on it or nowhere, a site name that is not the page title, and an address that may or may not survive. The questions are identical: where does each element live on the thing itself, and what does the entry claim that the page does not show.