How to Write the SCIN140 Project Outline on Lead Contamination in Fayetteville, NC
A section-by-section guide for SCIN140 students — covering alphanumeric outline format, lead contamination science, human and environmental impacts, solutions, APA citation requirements, and how to meet every grading criterion on the rubric.
The SCIN140 project outline on lead contamination in Fayetteville, NC is one of the most precisely structured assignments in introductory environmental science. The rubric grades format, scientific accuracy, solution viability, citation correctness, and writing quality as separate criteria — meaning a paper that has great content but wrong formatting loses points in every category where the structure fails. This guide explains the alphanumeric outline format requirements, what to put in each section, which scientific concepts belong where, how to select and evaluate solutions, how to construct APA 7th edition references for environmental science sources, and where most student outlines lose points on this specific assignment.
This is not a full research paper. It is a structured outline — which means no full paragraphs anywhere in the document. Every entry must be a brief, descriptive phrase that conveys specific content. A bullet like “discuss water pollution” earns zero points because it does not demonstrate what you actually know about lead contamination in Fayetteville, NC. A bullet like “anthropogenic lead sources: aging service lines, Fort Bragg legacy contamination, industrial discharge into Cape Fear River watershed” tells the grader you have done the research. Brief does not mean vague — it means concise and specific.
What This Guide Covers
What the Assignment Is Actually Testing
The SCIN140 project outline tests four things simultaneously: your ability to follow a precise structural format, your command of environmental science concepts and terminology, your ability to evaluate real-world solutions critically, and your citation discipline. The rubric assigns 10 points to format alone — separate from scientific accuracy — which means students who write scientifically correct content in the wrong structure lose points even before the grader reads what they wrote.
The topic — lead contamination in Fayetteville, NC — is not arbitrary. Fayetteville sits in Cumberland County on the Cape Fear River. The city has documented lead service line infrastructure, proximity to Fort Bragg (now Fort Liberty), and a history of industrial contamination that creates multiple identifiable lead exposure pathways. This gives you specific, citable, Fayetteville-specific content for every section of the outline — which is exactly what the rubric’s requirement for “detailed and specific” phrases demands.
The assignment’s ecological footprint connection requirement — linking your environmental issue to your Week 1 ecological footprint assignment — is one of the most commonly missed items in the Introduction section. It is explicitly listed on the rubric under the Introduction criteria and worth a portion of those 30 points. If your outline never mentions your personal footprint, you cannot earn full marks on the Introduction regardless of how scientifically accurate the rest of that section is.
Alphanumeric Outline Format Requirements
The alphanumeric outline format is a specific structural system — not a general bulleted list. It uses Roman numerals (I, II, III) for major sections, capital letters (A, B, C) for subsections, Arabic numerals (1, 2, 3) for sub-subsections, and lowercase letters (a, b, c) for any deeper level of detail. Indentation must be consistent at each level. The rubric grades this under Format (10 points) and checks: alphanumeric sequence, proper indentation and alignment, required order of topics and subtopics, and that entries are brief but detailed and descriptive phrases.
Correct Alphanumeric Structure — Applied to This Assignment
I. Introduction
A. State the environmental issue and give background information
1. Location: Fayetteville, NC — Cumberland County, Cape Fear River watershed
2. History: aging lead service lines, industrial legacy, Fort Bragg contamination
3. Ecological footprint connection: [your specific connection here]
B. Environmental Problem
1. Human impacts: neurotoxic effects on children, economic burden, majority-minority community exposure
2. Environmental impacts: bioaccumulation in aquatic organisms, soil contamination, groundwater leaching
Every level of the outline must be indented further right than the level above it. In Microsoft Word, use the Tab key — not the spacebar — to ensure consistent alignment across levels. The file must be submitted as .pdf, .doc, or .docx only; other formats are not accepted by the system and will receive zero.
Every outline entry must be a phrase — not a sentence with a subject and verb, not a full paragraph, and not a one-word category label. “Water pollution” is a label. “Lead-mediated disruption of aquatic biogeochemical cycles in the Cape Fear River system” is a descriptive phrase that uses scientific terminology and tells the grader exactly what you will cover. Aim for 8–20 words per entry. If your phrase could apply to any city about any pollutant, it is not specific enough for this rubric.
How to Write an Informative Title
The rubric states the title should be “informative and reflect your chosen topic.” This means the title must name both the specific environmental issue and the location. A title like “Water Pollution” fails this requirement. A title like “Lead Contamination in Fayetteville, NC: Sources, Impacts, and Solutions for the Cape Fear River Watershed” meets it. The title does not appear in a numbered section of the alphanumeric outline — it appears at the top of the document above Section I, followed by your name and course number.
Title Construction Formula for This Assignment
Specific pollutant + specific location + analytical framing. For lead contamination in Fayetteville, a strong title format is: “[Pollutant]: [Impact or Process] in [Location]” — for example, “Lead-Contaminated Drinking Water in Fayetteville, NC: Human Health Impacts, Environmental Pathways, and Remediation Strategies.” This signals to the grader that you are covering the issue analytically, not just descriptively, and that you know the specific location. Avoid vague titles like “An Environmental Problem in North Carolina” or “Water Quality Issues.”
How to Build the Introduction Section (Section I)
Section I is worth 30 points — the highest-weighted content section on the rubric. It has two required subsections: I.A (background information) and I.B (environmental problem). Within I.A, you must cover three specific items: location, history, and your ecological footprint connection. Within I.B, you must cover human impacts and environmental impacts. Missing any of these sub-items costs points directly under the Introduction criterion.
I.A.1 — Location: What to Include
The location entry must be specific to Fayetteville, NC — not generic to North Carolina or “the southeastern United States.” Identify Cumberland County, the Cape Fear River as the primary water body, the city’s municipal water system (served by Fayetteville Public Works Commission), and the relevant infrastructure context: the presence of pre-1986 lead service lines in older residential neighborhoods, and the proximity to military installations with documented environmental contamination histories.
I.A.2 — History: What Led to This Issue
The history of lead contamination in Fayetteville, NC has several identifiable threads. Pre-1986 plumbing codes permitted lead service lines and lead solder in residential and commercial plumbing; homes built before 1986 in older Fayetteville neighborhoods are the primary point-of-use contamination risk. Fort Bragg (now Fort Liberty) has a documented environmental legacy including soil and groundwater contamination from military activities. The Cape Fear River has faced industrial contamination pressures from upstream sources. The Safe Drinking Water Act’s Lead and Copper Rule (1991, revised 2021) is the federal regulatory framework governing municipal lead monitoring — and the history of its enforcement gaps is relevant context. Include the Flint, Michigan crisis (2014–2016) only if you connect it explicitly to regulatory failures that apply to Fayetteville’s context — do not simply drop it in as background with no local connection.
I.A.3 — Ecological Footprint Connection
This is the item most students forget. Your Week 1 ecological footprint assignment calculated your personal environmental impact. The connection to lead contamination should be direct and specific — not generic. If your footprint included high water consumption, you can connect it to municipal water system demand and the infrastructure aging that increases lead leaching risk. If your footprint included energy use, connect it to lead smelting and battery manufacturing as sources of atmospheric lead deposition. If your footprint showed high consumer goods consumption, connect it to electronics and battery production as lead cycle contributors. Do not write “this connects to my footprint because we all use water” — that is too vague to earn points.
I.B.1 — Human Impacts
Human impacts must be specific to Fayetteville, NC and must use scientific and health terminology correctly. The grader is looking for three domains: health impacts, social/equity impacts, and economic impacts. For health: lead is a cumulative neurotoxin with no safe blood lead level in children; childhood lead exposure causes irreversible cognitive impairment, reduced IQ, behavioral dysregulation, and increased risk of cardiovascular disease in adults. For equity: Fayetteville’s older housing stock is disproportionately concentrated in lower-income and majority-minority neighborhoods, creating environmental justice dimensions to lead exposure risk. For economics: lead-related healthcare costs, special education requirements for cognitively impaired children, and property value impacts from contamination disclosure all represent quantifiable economic burdens.
I.B.2 — Environmental Impacts
Environmental impacts must use ecological principles and scientific terminology — this is explicitly stated in both the assignment instructions and the rubric’s Writing Expectations criterion. For lead contamination in the Cape Fear River watershed, relevant environmental impact categories include: bioaccumulation and biomagnification in aquatic food webs (Pb²⁺ accumulation in benthic invertebrates, fish, and piscivorous birds); soil contamination through atmospheric deposition and leachate from legacy paint and solder sources; inhibition of nitrogen fixation in soil microbiota; impacts on riparian plant uptake through phytotoxicity at elevated soil lead concentrations; and sediment lead accumulation as a long-term contamination reservoir even after point-source remediation.
Lead Contamination: The Scientific Concepts You Must Apply
The rubric’s Writing Expectations criterion (10 points) specifically requires that the outline “accurately applies scientific concepts and uses scientific terminology correctly.” This means using the correct chemical, toxicological, and ecological terms — not lay equivalents. The table below maps the correct scientific terminology to each section of the outline.
| Outline Section | Required Scientific Concepts | Correct Terminology to Use |
|---|---|---|
| I.B.1 — Human Health Impacts | Lead toxicology, neurotoxicity mechanisms, dose-response | Plumbism, blood lead level (BLL), neurotoxin, neurodevelopmental impairment, cholinergic disruption, chelation therapy, no-threshold dose-response |
| I.B.2 — Environmental Impacts | Aquatic toxicology, biogeochemistry, food web ecology | Bioaccumulation, biomagnification, trophic transfer, phytotoxicity, sediment sorption, leachate, aquifer contamination, benthic ecosystem disruption |
| II.A — Solution 1 (local) | Water treatment chemistry, infrastructure remediation | Corrosion control treatment (CCT), orthophosphate dosing, lead service line replacement (LSLR), action level exceedance (ALE), turbidity monitoring |
| II.B — Solution 2 (recommendation) | Phytoremediation, bioremediation, policy ecology | Phytoremediation, rhizosphere microbial activity, hyperaccumulator species, immobilization vs. extraction remediation strategies, point-of-use filtration (NSF/ANSI 53 certified) |
| III.A — Conclusion Points | Synthesis of ecological principles | Environmental justice, cumulative exposure, ecological resilience, anthropogenic contamination, legacy pollutant, remediation efficacy |
Human and Environmental Impacts: What Fayetteville-Specific Content Looks Like
Generic impact statements — “lead causes health problems and harms the environment” — earn Beginning scores on the Introduction criterion. Fayetteville-specific, scientifically precise impact statements earn Exemplary scores. The following framing shows the difference between generic and specific for each impact category required in Section I.B.
Human Impacts: Health Domain (I.B.1)
Frame around documented lead exposure pathways specific to Fayetteville. The municipal water system’s service area includes pre-1986 residential plumbing infrastructure. Children under 6 in these households face the highest BLL risk due to hand-to-mouth ingestion and neurological vulnerability during critical developmental windows. Include: blood lead level action thresholds (CDC reference value: 3.5 µg/dL); irreversibility of neurodevelopmental damage above threshold; and the disproportionate burden on Cumberland County’s low-income, predominantly Black and Latino communities who occupy the oldest housing stock.
Human Impacts: Social and Economic Domain (I.B.1)
The economic costs of childhood lead exposure in North Carolina include elevated special education costs, reduced lifetime earnings from IQ point losses, and healthcare costs for lead-related cardiovascular and renal disease in adults. Environmental justice framing is appropriate here: Fayetteville is a majority-minority city where older housing stock correlates with lower household income and higher exposure risk — a documented pattern in Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) cumulative impacts assessments of lead contamination in southeastern U.S. municipalities.
Environmental Impacts: Aquatic Ecosystem (I.B.2)
The Cape Fear River receives urban stormwater runoff carrying lead from atmospheric deposition, legacy paint chip erosion, and disturbed soil. Within the aquatic system: benthic macroinvertebrates accumulate lead through sediment contact and ingestion (bioaccumulation); lead transfers up the food web through predation (biomagnification), reaching elevated concentrations in largemouth bass and great blue herons that are piscivorous. Lead at elevated concentrations inhibits photosynthesis in aquatic macrophytes and disrupts nitrogen cycling by inhibiting nitrifying bacteria in riparian soil.
Environmental Impacts: Soil and Groundwater (I.B.2)
Soil lead contamination in Fayetteville derives from three pathways: atmospheric deposition from historic leaded gasoline combustion (persists as particulate in urban surface soil), lead-based paint chip erosion from pre-1978 structures, and leachate from corroding buried service lines. Soil-to-groundwater leaching is pH-dependent: lead is more mobile in acidic soils (lower pH), which is relevant in the acidic sandy loam soils common to the coastal plain geology of Cumberland County. Contaminated shallow aquifer layers are a secondary exposure pathway for private well users in peri-urban Fayetteville.
How to Structure the Solutions Section (Section II)
Section II is worth 30 points and is the most structurally complex section of the outline. The assignment gives you a choice: cover two local solutions already being implemented, or cover one local solution already in place and one solution you recommend based on evidence from other locations. For lead contamination in Fayetteville, NC, the second option — one existing solution and one recommendation — is stronger because it allows you to demonstrate critical evaluation of current policy and propose an evidence-based improvement.
Each solution — whether existing or recommended — must cover three sub-items: how it works (procedures, policies, enforcement for existing; mechanism and evidence base for recommended), costs associated with the solution, and beneficial results or projected benefits. Missing any of the three sub-items for either solution costs you points under the Solutions criterion regardless of how well-written the other parts are.
Which Solutions to Select and Why — A Decision Framework
The rubric requires that your solutions be “factual, detailed, and specific” and that your recommended solution be “viable and based on research.” This rules out purely aspirational suggestions without evidence. For lead contamination in Fayetteville specifically, the solution landscape breaks down into four categories — each with different evidence strength and local applicability.
Lead Service Line Replacement (LSLR)
The EPA’s LCRR mandates full inventory and replacement timelines. Fayetteville PWC is currently required to inventory all service lines. This is the most evidence-strong, locally documented solution — use it as your Solution A (existing local solution). Cite NC DEQ compliance records and the EPA LCRR rule text as sources.
Point-of-Use Filtration Programs
NSF/ANSI 53 certified filters are a bridging strategy with documented efficacy in Flint and Newark. Strong recommendation option because it is low-cost, immediately deployable, and targets the highest-risk households. Use peer-reviewed public health literature (e.g., Environmental Health Perspectives) as evidence base.
Soil Phytoremediation
Evidence-based, relevant to childhood soil ingestion pathways in Fayetteville’s older residential areas. Brassica juncea and Thlaspi caerulescens are documented lead hyperaccumulators with field trial data. Appropriate for recommendation if your ecological footprint connection involves land use.
Housing-Integrated Lead Abatement
HUD’s Lead Safe Housing Rule covers federally-assisted housing. Fayetteville has public housing stock that intersects with lead paint risk. This is a viable policy-level recommendation linking housing remediation to water contamination control — particularly strong for equity-focused framing.
Enhanced Monitoring and Community Surveillance
Blood lead level (BLL) surveillance programs targeting children under 6 in Cumberland County’s highest-risk zip codes. NC DHHS operates childhood BLL testing — a viable recommendation to expand coverage and frequency. Use CDC childhood lead poisoning prevention data as evidence.
Solutions to Avoid in This Outline
“Raise awareness” and “educate the public” are not viable solutions for a science assignment rubric that requires evidence-based, cost-quantified options. They earn zero under the Solutions criterion. Every solution must have a mechanism, a cost, and documented evidence of efficacy somewhere.
How to Write the Conclusion Section (Section III)
Section III is worth 10 points and has two required components: III.A (4–6 numbered final learning points summarizing what you learned about the issue’s effect on the community) and III.B (future outlook for the issue in Fayetteville). The 4–6 points must be numbered — not lettered, not bulleted — and must appear as a numbered sub-list under III.A. This is one of the most frequently misformatted sections.
What the 4–6 Summary Points Must Do
They summarize what you learned about how this specific issue affects your chosen community — Fayetteville, NC. They are not general facts about lead contamination globally. They should represent the analytical conclusions from each section of your outline: what the history reveals, what the human and environmental impacts show, what the solutions have achieved, and what remains unresolved. Each point should be a descriptive phrase that is specific to Fayetteville. “Lead contamination is a serious problem” is not an acceptable point. “Fayetteville’s pre-1986 housing infrastructure remains the primary lead exposure pathway for children under 6 in Cumberland County’s lowest-income census tracts” is.
Section III.B (future outlook) must answer two questions: Is the issue expected to get better or worse in Fayetteville, and are there specific plans in place to mitigate future impacts? For lead contamination in Fayetteville, the future outlook is cautiously improving — the LCRR compliance requirements mean Fayetteville PWC must complete its service line inventory and begin replacements — but the timeline is long (full replacement programs in similar cities take 10–20 years), and interim exposure risk remains elevated for residents in unremediated housing. The NC DEQ’s oversight of the PWC’s compliance, and any federal infrastructure funding received for lead remediation, are the specific plans to cite.
APA 7th Edition Citations for This Specific Topic
The rubric requires a minimum of five references in proper APA 7th edition format, with every reference cited in-text at least once, and every in-text citation appearing in the reference list. For a science assignment on lead contamination in Fayetteville, NC, your five references should include at minimum: a peer-reviewed journal article, a federal regulatory document, a state agency source, a local government source, and one additional peer-reviewed or government source. The reference list appears as Section IV of the outline.
Reference Types That Strengthen This Outline
- Peer-reviewed journal article on lead toxicology or water contamination — search PubMed, Google Scholar, or EBSCO using “lead contamination drinking water” or “childhood lead exposure North Carolina.” Environmental Health Perspectives and Environmental Science & Technology are appropriate journals.
- U.S. EPA Lead and Copper Rule Revisions (2021) — the federal regulatory foundation for all municipal lead monitoring requirements. Cite as: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2021). Lead and copper rule revisions. https://www.epa.gov/dwreginfo/lead-and-copper-rule-revisions
- NC DEQ compliance data or Fayetteville PWC Consumer Confidence Report — local, specific, citable evidence of current monitoring results. Available at the Fayetteville Public Works Commission website.
- CDC Lead Poisoning Prevention resource — for blood lead level thresholds and childhood exposure data. Cite as: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2023). Childhood lead poisoning prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/lead/
- Peer-reviewed article on phytoremediation or POU filtration efficacy — for the recommended solution’s evidence base. Search “phytoremediation lead contaminated soil” or “point-of-use filtration lead efficacy.”
Reference Types That Weaken This Outline
- Wikipedia articles — not academically acceptable for a science assignment at any level; the rubric requires “academically and scientifically credible references”
- General news articles as the sole source for scientific claims — use for documented events (e.g., a contamination incident), not for toxicological mechanisms
- Undated web pages with no identifiable institutional author — fail the credibility criterion
- Consumer product websites (e.g., water filter manufacturer sites) — not scientific sources; cite the NSF/ANSI Standard itself or a peer-reviewed efficacy study instead
- Sources not cited in-text — every reference must have at least one in-text citation; references without in-text citations are flagged under the Reference Section criterion
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Lead and Copper Rule Revisions (2021) is the primary federal regulatory document governing municipal lead monitoring and service line replacement requirements for cities like Fayetteville. It is publicly available, institutionally authored, dated, and appropriate as a citable source for both the Solutions and References sections of this outline. Access it directly at https://www.epa.gov/dwreginfo/lead-and-copper-rule-revisions. APA 7th edition format: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2021). Lead and copper rule revisions. https://www.epa.gov/dwreginfo/lead-and-copper-rule-revisions. This is the foundational regulatory citation for Solution A of your outline.
How to Format In-Text Citations in an Outline
In-text citations in an outline follow the same APA parenthetical format as in a full paper: (Author, Year) immediately after the phrase the source supports. In an outline, they appear at the end of the relevant phrase, not as a separate line. Example: “Orthophosphate dosing as corrosion control treatment — reduces Pb²⁺ dissolution into tap water by forming stable lead phosphate coating on pipe surfaces (U.S. EPA, 2021).” The grader checks that every in-text citation has a corresponding reference list entry and vice versa — mismatches cost points directly under the Reference Section criterion.
How the Rubric Grades Each Section
Understanding what each rubric criterion is specifically checking — not just the point values — allows you to allocate effort correctly. The rubric has five criteria: Format (10), Introduction Section (30), Solutions Section (30), Conclusion Section (10), and Reference Section and Internal Citations (10), plus Writing Expectations and Scientific Terminology (10).
Where Most Outlines on This Topic Lose Points
Using Full Sentences Instead of Phrases
“Lead contamination in Fayetteville, NC is a serious problem that affects many people, especially children who are vulnerable to its toxic effects.” This is a full sentence. It belongs in a paper, not an outline. It also earns zero for scientific terminology (no specific terms used) and zero for being Fayetteville-specific (applies to any city). It would receive no credit under the Writing Expectations criterion for scientific terminology application.
Instead
“Childhood plumbism risk: pre-1986 service lines in Cumberland County low-income housing — no safe BLL threshold in children under 6; neurodevelopmental impairment at exposures above 3.5 µg/dL (CDC, 2023).” This is a descriptive phrase with scientific terminology, a Fayetteville-specific location reference, and an in-text citation. It earns points under Format (phrase structure), Introduction (human impacts), and Writing Expectations (scientific terminology).
Solutions Without Costs or Benefits
“II.A.1. Fayetteville PWC is replacing lead pipes.” This entry covers only the mechanism and misses costs and benefits entirely — two of the three required sub-items under Solution A. The rubric checks each of the three sub-items explicitly. A solution section missing costs and benefits for even one solution cannot earn full marks under the Solutions criterion (30 points).
Instead
Build three separate numbered sub-entries: II.A.1 covers the mechanism (LSLR program with orthophosphate CCT under EPA LCRR 2021); II.A.2 covers costs ($3,000–$10,000 per line replacement, multi-million dollar capital commitment, ongoing CCT chemical operational costs); II.A.3 covers results (specific reduction in 90th-percentile BLL at monitored sites, number of lines replaced to date per PWC consumer confidence report). Three sub-entries, three specific items, three rubric checkboxes satisfied.
Missing the Ecological Footprint Connection
This sub-item — I.A.3 — is the most commonly missing element in Introduction sections. Students who treat it as optional lose points directly under the Introduction criterion (30 points). “This connects to my footprint because water is important” is too vague to earn the sub-item credit. The connection must be specific to what your Week 1 footprint calculated and how that directly links to lead contamination pathways or consumption patterns that drive lead cycle inputs.
Instead
Connect your actual footprint data to lead exposure pathways. If your footprint showed high water use: frame it around municipal infrastructure stress and the corrosion dynamics that increase lead dissolution under high-flow conditions. If your footprint showed high consumer goods use: connect to electronics and automotive battery manufacturing as industrial lead cycle contributors. If your footprint showed energy use: connect to coal combustion as a source of atmospheric lead deposition that settles into surface soils and waterways in the Cape Fear watershed.
Conclusion Points That Are Not Numbered
The rubric specifically states the conclusion must contain “4-6 main learning points.” These must be formatted as a numbered sub-list (1, 2, 3…) under section III.A. Students who write them as lettered points (a, b, c) or as unlabeled bullet points are using incorrect alphanumeric format — losing points under both the Conclusion criterion and the Format criterion simultaneously for the same error.
Instead
Format III.A with numbered sub-points: III.A.1 through III.A.6, each as a specific descriptive phrase summarizing one learning point about how lead contamination affects Fayetteville’s community. Example: “III.A.1. Disproportionate lead exposure burden: pre-1986 housing density correlates with majority-minority census tracts in Cumberland County — documented environmental justice pattern (U.S. EPA, 2021).” Numbered, specific, cited, and connected to the community impact requirement.
- Title names both the specific pollutant (lead contamination) and the specific location (Fayetteville, NC) — not generic water pollution in North Carolina
- Alphanumeric sequence is correct at every level: I → A → 1 → a with no skipped levels or incorrect labels
- Indentation is consistent at each level — used Tab key in Word, not spacebar
- All entries are descriptive phrases — no full sentences, no single-word labels
- I.A.3 ecological footprint connection is present and specific to your Week 1 data
- I.B.1 and I.B.2 both use correct scientific terminology (BLL, bioaccumulation, phytotoxicity, etc.)
- Solution A has all three sub-items: mechanism (II.A.1), costs (II.A.2), results (II.A.3)
- Solution B has all three sub-items: mechanism (II.B.1), costs (II.B.2), projected benefits (II.B.3)
- Recommended solution is viable and evidence-based — not speculative or aspirational
- Section III.A has exactly 4–6 learning points formatted as numbered sub-entries (1, 2, 3…)
- Section III.B addresses both future trajectory and specific mitigation plans in Fayetteville
- Minimum 5 references in APA 7th edition format under Section IV
- Every in-text citation has a reference list entry; every reference list entry has at least one in-text citation
- File saved as .pdf, .doc, or .docx — no other formats accepted by the submission system
- Spelling, grammar, and punctuation reviewed — scientific terms spelled correctly