A finished ENG-106 Topic 7 APA citation audit example, checking each borrowed line against its source and matching every mention to a retrievable reference entry. Searches like "eng 106 topic 7 assignment example", "eng106 topic 7 sample" and "eng-106 topic 7 example" land here.
What a finished ENG-106 Topic 7 APA citation audit looks like
The finished audit is a checking record, not a reformatted paper. It works line by line through the draft, and for each sentence carrying borrowed material it records the source, whether attribution is present, whether the wording is quoted or restated, and whether the claim in the draft matches what the source says. That last check catches the expensive errors, where a citation is formatted correctly and attached to something the source never claimed. A second pass runs the reference list in both directions, from text to list and from list to text. Each entry is then tested for retrievability, with dead links and incomplete records flagged. Corrections are listed with the location of each, so the draft can be repaired without a second search.
How an ENG-106 Topic 7 example is structured
The audit runs three passes, each hunting a different kind of error, because trying to catch all of them at once catches none. The first pass goes sentence by sentence through the draft, marking every line carrying somebody else's idea and confirming that attribution sits at the point a reader needs it. The second pass checks accuracy, returning to each cited work to confirm the draft says what that work says, and this is where misattributed claims surface. The third pass reconciles the reference list with the text in both directions and tests each entry against the record it points to. A closing section lists every correction by location, separating formatting fixes from substantive ones so the substantive ones are not lost.
Line by line, not page by page
Every sentence carrying borrowed material is checked individually, because attribution errors hide inside paragraphs that look properly cited.
Accuracy checked against the source
Each citation is verified to support what the draft claims, which catches the expensive case of a correct format on a wrong claim.
The list reconciled both ways
Text is checked against the reference list and the list against the text, since either direction alone leaves half the errors standing.
Entries tested for retrievability
Each reference is checked against the record it points to, because an entry a reader cannot follow documents nothing at all.
Corrections recorded with locations
Fixes are listed by where they apply and sorted into formatting and substance, so the substantive ones are not lost among commas.
Where marks go in ENG-106 Topic 7
The costly errors on this topic are not formatting. A citation attached to a claim the source does not make is worse than a missing citation, because it is checkable and it undermines everything else in the paper. Unattributed restatement running for several sentences after a single citation blurs the boundary between the source and the writer, and LopesWrite frequently surfaces the passage even where the words were changed. Reference entries with no matching mention, and mentions with no matching entry, both signal a list assembled separately from the writing. Entries missing the details that make a work retrievable defeat the purpose of the list. Secondary citations presented as though the writer read the original are a specific and serious version of the same failure.
Get an ENG-106 Topic 7 example written to your instructions
Send the ENG-106 Topic 7 assignment instructions, the rubric from your classroom, the draft you want audited and the sources behind it. We write a custom example to those criteria, with attribution checked line by line, claims verified against what the sources actually say and the reference list reconciled both ways, in 24 to 48 hours. The first one is free.
ENG-106 Topic 7 questions, answered
Why check whether the source says what I claimed?
Because that is the error a reader can actually catch. Formatting slips get noticed and cost a little; a citation supporting a claim the source never made costs the reader's trust in every other citation in the paper. It usually comes from working out of notes taken in a hurry, which is why the audit goes back to the sources themselves.
How many citations does one paraphrase need?
Enough that ownership never becomes unclear. A single attribution can cover a run of sentences only where the first sentence makes it obvious the whole passage comes from that source and nothing of the writer's is mixed in. In practice, refreshing the attribution when a passage runs on is safer, and it costs a reader nothing at all.
What is wrong with citing a source I found quoted elsewhere?
Nothing, provided you present it as what it is. A secondary citation tells a reader you read the quoting work rather than the original, and there is a standard way to write one. Presenting it as a direct reading misrepresents what you did, and it goes wrong often, because quoting authors compress and reframe what they quote.