- August 2, 2018 at 9:57 am
Please when referencing tables do I have to put the three Annual statements for each of the companies? i.e: ABC,2015; ABC 2016… and XPY,2015; XPY 2016.August 2, 2018 at 10:33 am
For tables and graphs you may write “Source: Annual reports 2015, 2016, 2017 ABC and XYZ”August 2, 2018 at 10:43 am
Alright great, thank you ma’am.August 2, 2018 at 10:55 am
Another question please I have chose Rio Tinto as my company for the research as if operates in the mining industry. Now since the company is the second largest miner in the world based on market value according to this source https://www.marketwatch.com/story/rio-tinto-profit-jumps-plans-further-1b-buyback-2018-08-01.
I want to list that as one of the strengths of Rio Tinto in my SWOT analysis, how do I do the in text referencing?
By market value, Rio Tinto is the largest miner in world based on market value ( Hoyle, 2018)
Is that acceptable?August 2, 2018 at 3:17 pm
If this was the source you have cited above and it was written by Hoyle then yes this is correct. Have you consulted the Open Tuition Ultimate Guide to Referencing your RAP as that sets out most of the important rules about in text references and how to show these in your reference list?August 2, 2018 at 3:25 pm
I have, thanks so very muchAugust 2, 2018 at 9:19 pm
Hello please do I also need to reference the background information about the company I chose?August 19, 2018 at 11:43 am
Please I’m confused on how to reference this site. https://www.reuters.com/article/rio-tinto-copper/focus-rio-tinto-ready-to-splash-out-on-copper-idUSL8N1TS0ZG
Should it be (Reuters.com, 2018)?August 19, 2018 at 3:17 pm
If this is the only reuters reference from 2018 then (Reuters.com, 2018) in the text would be fine however if others from 2018 are used then you would need to distinguish them from each other with (a), (b), (c) etc. In you list you should give it the article title as it helps the reader.August 19, 2018 at 9:01 pm
Hello please what about an online article where another person was quoted in. Do I use the name of the original person that was quoted in the article or the author of the article? For instance
An article written by Mr ABC in 2017 has a statement that was made by Mr XYZ. Do I write (ABC, 2017) or (XYZ, 2017)?August 20, 2018 at 9:49 am
I have an online article, it says “China will introduce foreign investors to trade in domestic iron ore futures from May 4, according to the country’s securities regulator.”
How do I reference this please,is it (author of the article, date) or (Securities regulator, date)
I’m confused on which designator and source material to use.August 20, 2018 at 9:49 am
Can someone help me? ??August 20, 2018 at 1:05 pm
It may be a case of trying to shut the gate after the horse has bolted (I await the result of my May 2018 submission), but I’ve only recently happened upon the idea that ‘Investopedia’ is not a source that OBU are keen on.
This is somewhat concerning for me as I referenced them 6 times for definitions of financial ratio formulae (such as gross profit, net debt/EBITDA etc.).
Is anyone aware of why the site is not considered reliable? Besides the -pedia suffix, I can’t see that it shares anything else in common with oft-lamented Wikipedia, which has the fair criticism of being editable by just about anyone with an email address. Investopedia, by contrast, is in the business of educating investors through information and articles authored by editors and analysts – it is not editable by all and sundry, to the best of my knowledge. It therefore provides much detail on financial ratios, indispensable tools for analysing financial statements, and therefore hugely useful for Topic 8.
I would be most disappointed to fail for this, especially as it was not highlighted by my Mentor as an area of concern.
Has anyone had an experience of failing their RAP for the inclusion of Investopedia as a source?August 20, 2018 at 2:19 pm
nikuz – I am not sure if you have posted 2 slightly different queries here or are just giving more information about the one query.
Taking your second query. The securities regulator is unnamed and therefore you would cite the name of the author of the article in the text and list.
Regarding your first query. This is like when reading a citation in a book or academic paper. The usual thing is in the text to put (ABC as cited in XYZ, 2017) and then in the list have XYZ 2017)August 20, 2018 at 5:02 pm
Alright thanks.August 21, 2018 at 1:53 am
Hello Trephena, what if the securities regulator was named?August 21, 2018 at 5:00 pm
The rule for referencing is that you should be referring to the published source of the statement (so the reader can read it for themselves).
Unless the securities regulator has published the document then you cite the author of the article or journal the statement was published in (the reader needs to be able to locate it).
So for example with the Corporate Governance when referring to the Code you would use the FRC (Financial Reporting Council) for this and would only use an author if they were discussing some finer details of this Code in a published articled which they had written. However it would be wrong to use the FRC for such an article as they haven’t written it!August 22, 2018 at 10:56 pm
obuwankenobi – The whole point about references is that in using them you should use the best quality and most reliable sources – so anonymous sources are never ideal and where there is a choice always go for a named author. However when it comes to the formulae and definitions for ratios I think these fall into the category that they are so well known and been repeated so many times, who in fact was the person that first came up with them? Certainly not the writers of the Kaplan texts or even Frank Wood! This being the case I almost wonder whether they should be referenced at all – I cite as my example – would anyone really expect someone to reference the statement “the official residence of the Queen of England, Elizabeth II, is Buckingham Palace”? Of course not! (However I might expect a reference if someone was reporting as a biographical fact about the Queen some detail that is possibly not known at all).
With Wikipedia there is no control over who writes what on it and therefore the ‘facts’ are not therefore considered necessarily credible and reliable – the difference being that a named author or researcher is actually putting their reputation on the line by making statements and hypotheses. Not all anonymous sources are rubbish it is just a case that named sources are always preferable and you are defending Investopedia quite well here provided the content is controlled.
So in many respects I would tell you not to worry unduly about this – certainly as a former marker as I am not convinced that references are needed, I would not have failed for this. However I do not speak for every single marker although there should be as much consistency as possible in the marking. This being the case in the unlikely event that you are failed for this and THIS ALONE (very unlikely as I say for the former) then appeal.
(Certainly as a First Class mentor I shall be supporting all of my mentees through an appeal IF I disagree with their feedback and IF in my opinion based on 14 years of experience of marking to the Assessment Criteria believe that they should have passed…. however of course like I cannot speak for other markers, neither can I speak for other mentors!)August 23, 2018 at 9:35 am
Gillian, thank you for your comprehensive response.
Initially I hadn’t provided references for these formulae for the same reasons you cite; it was my Mentor who told me to go find references for them. Indeed, I didn’t think there were many high quality sources for them, and Investopedia looked like the best compromise.
Hopefully all will be well, and I’ll certainly report back either way.August 23, 2018 at 11:04 am
Yes please do get back to us and make your comment here when you find out. However I wouldn’t be unduly concerned and as I say to all students at this stage when they can do nothing about it and their worries are probably unfounded: Chill baby! Chill! 😀
When the results come out (I think this 18 September) we will also have a Period 36 Results Forum thread so you can post your result on that thread too.August 23, 2018 at 7:12 pm
obuwankenobi – I need to add that all failed work is reviewed by a moderator (a senior marker) and as I was a senior marker, if someone had failed on this alone, I would have overturned the result and changed this to a pass – and I am sure other moderators would also do so. So stop worrying and wait and see!
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.