Thank you for your kind words :)

No need for the comma between '1990' and 'and' :)

A combination of both :)

Typically, editors will go after the title of the work. The initial of the given name goes first, followed by the surname and the letters 'Ed.' following in parentheses. Something like this. J. Horn (Ed.).

Whenever you access the source online, you need to provide a means to access it. In the case of journal articles, that typically means using a DOI link (though in rare cases a journal article may not have a DOI, son in those cases you'll use the article's URL). However, there are some online books published by journals or databases that are assigned a DOI. Thus, if you access and ebook and it has an DOI link/number, then you'll provide that in your reference. If it is an online book but there is only a traditional URL and not a DOI, then you'll simply use the URL. If it is a print book, then you don't need to include any online information

Thanks so much for your kind words :)

The idea approach is to go to those sources and cite them directly. I don't know that there is a format for multiple indirect citations because the punctuation would make it syntactically ambiguous as to which sources were cited indirectly. The other options are to simply cite one of the sources indirectly or narrative frame the conclusion as being based on a literature review. For instance, "Based on a review of current literature, Makridakis (2017) reports that... Hope this helps :)

@@jasonhorn901 Thank you so much I truly appreciate it 🥰

Thanks so much for your kind words :) That means a lot to me.

It can be tricky because of irregular adverbs. And you are 100%: They both modify. And these are GREAT examples. The question though is "What do they modify?" Adverbs modify verbs, adjectives, and other adverbs. Adjectives modify nouns. If you have and adverb modifying and adjective, that is in turn modifying a noun, then no hyphen is needed. In your example, a 'brilliantly written novel' needs no hyphen because 'brilliantly' is an adverb that describe the adjective 'written' (which is a bit of odd adjective in that context but it can serve as an adjective) which in turn modifies the noun. In 'hard working horse.' That's tricky. Is 'hard' an irregular adverb (without an 'ly') that is modifying the adjective 'working'? If so, no hyphen because it is describing 'horse.' However, it 'working' functions as a noun (the act of working) that is being described as 'hard' (and adjective in that case) and the two are collectively describing the horse, then a hyphen would be needed. The semantics of that particular issue are interesting, and though there are subjective interpretations and potentially different intent, I've seen this combination typically hyphenated or simply put together in one word with no hyphen: hardworking. I often use Google ngram viewer to determine what the most prevalent usage is because, regardless of how 'prescriptive' grammatical rules suggest something should be done, 'descriptive' approaches simply observe how language is used, and how something is most often used usually ends up defining the rules that eventually get prescribed. Here's a link to the Google ngram view on 'hard working,' 'hard-working,' and 'hardworking,' all of which have been used. And thanks for the great question. I hope this helped: books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=hard+working%2C+hard-working%2C+hardworking&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3

Thanks! I hate when I miss those. Thanks for letting me know :)

After the page number and period and before the URL/doig link, you'll put the following: Retrieve January 13, 2024, from Make sense? :)

Thanks for your kind words!

You are very welcome :)

I'm not sure how Mendeley works as I don't use it an instead create citations and references myself. Though reference generators can be helpful, they often make mistakes, so it is always best to double check their work. Sorry. I realize this might now help much.

@@jasonhorn901thank you very much for your interest

The template provided by APA looks like this: Harris, K. R., Graham, S., & Urdan T. (Eds.). (2012). APA educational psychology handbook (Vol. 1). American Psychological Association. Follow that template, and you should be good (but be sure to italicize the title. The italics doesn't show up in KZbin's comments section. Hope this helps.

Thanks for your advice, Dr

It looks like you've answered your own question. If pages are separated (which often happens in newspapers), and you are citing the print version (which is far less common now), you'd do something like (1, 4-5), separating the different ranges. I have another video on journal article specifically. Those will be formatted as you have, with the volume number italicized.

If there isn't a page number, you can use a paragraph number (WHO, 2023, para. 3). Hope that helps :)

Thanks so much for your question. You include up to 20 authors, and if there are more than 20, the first 19 and last one. Details are outlined here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/l4ubdqxtdsuboMk

Thanks for your kind words!

In a reference entry, you will include up to 20 names. If there are more than 20 names, then you will include the first 19 and the last one. Details for formatting are outlined here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/l4ubdqxtdsuboMk

Thank you for your kind and generous words.

Ouch! Getting docked marks for that seems a bit harsh. I'm glad this can help though :) Thanks for your kind words!

Thanks for the question. I don't know an instance where the author wouldn't be mentioned but the co-author would be. Those citations depend on whether there are two authors or more than two. Check this video out for details: kzbin.info/www/bejne/jZDUiHihd52Jga8

You are very welcome :) Thank you for the comment!

Thanks 🙂

Thanks for the comment. Wish I had the tools to do that!

@@jasonhorn901 Also you videos are really helpful and good. Keep doing what you are doing, You helped me so much and I appreciate it it nice to know there are people like you in this world, who helping other's for the greater good. Thankyou so so much.

@@funky_functionist. This comment belongs on r/wholesome. Thanks for the kind words!

@@jasonhorn901 haha and your welcome later 🤣🤣🤣🤣👍👍