(By the way, this is not intended to be a very serious project. I did this for two reasons. First, for fun. Second, I'm weird. The big weak spot of this project is that I do not have access to the 15th edition of the Chicago manual. Our library only has the 14th [for no apparent reason]. [So our library is bad; our Writing Center still rocks.] I doubt it changes much. I also know more about Turabian than Chicago, in case that ever makes any discernible difference.)

Harvard
Long Island University
University of Georgia
Hollins
University of California, Berkeley
Duke
Temple
University of Southern Mississippi
University of Toronto
Univervsity of Wisconsin-Madison
Bucknell
Diana Hacker

Harvard's site has few examples; failed to indent the footnotes properly; doesn't mention "Ibid."; is out-of-date (1995); and fails to italicize the shortened title on a subsequent footnote when there are two sources by the same author.

Long Island University only has info on Reference List/Parenthetical References in Turabian; doesn't cover footnotes.

University of Georgia Libraries have good stuff. I count one typo ("ImpossibleBodies" instead of "Impossible Bodies"). Info for citing website may be in line with Chicago manual, section 15.424, but is not much like Turabian manual, eg section 8.141. Info from an electronic database seems to leave out the accession number; in general, their templates do not comply with Chicago manual, section 528.2. Two big problems: few examples, and no mention of "Ibid."

It looks like Hollins was confusing the Turabian author-date system with APA's. I can't see any justification for their highlighting "Ibid." ; the Turabian manual certainly never does. (Minor typing anomaly: they have this tendency to incorrectly italicize a comma that follows italicized text.) One more: I think they could use the accession number on their database citations, as in Chigao Manual, section 528.2.

It should look like this when you have an editor as author on footnote: John Smith, ed. Other People Wrote this Book and I Put it Together (Dallas: DBU Press, 1998), 78.

University of Cali., Berkely, added an unnecessary comma after the title of the book. See Turabian manual, 11.11

Duke's doing pretty good. I'm kind of impressed. Nevertheless, see Turabian manual, 11.6 to see that "et al." is used in parenthetical references in the author-date system. Footnotes use "and others." Also, take note (Turabian manual 11.12) that a translated work would be more like this: Jean-Luc Marion, God Without Being, trans. Thomas A. Carlson (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991), 13. (Duke left out the comma before "trans.")

I'm considerably impressed with Temple University's Writing Center. One little thing for sure that I've found is that a second edition should be "2d ed." instead of Temple's "2nd ed." See Turabian manual, section 11.18. Also note that their own sample footnotes at the bottom of the page fail to skip a line between footnotes. See Turabian manual, section 1.2. Temple and DBU are close; I would be a little surprised if they were better than we, overall. DISADVANTAGE: it's only for Turabian footnote style and doesn't cover Turabian author-date system with parenthetical references!

The University of Southern Mississippi's library is quite bizzare. It tells us how to do Turabian note-style works cited page; links to Concordia University Libraries instead; and the Concordia link only gives out info on parenthetical references and reference lists.

University of Toronto fails to mention Ibid. They also didn't single-space within a note and double-space between.

University of Wisc.-Madison mentions the fifth edition of Turabian manual (we're on sixth now). Only covers Turabian notes and not the author-date/parenthetical references system. Says "2nd ed." instead of "2d ed." for a second edition (see sixth edition Turabian manual, 11.18). Doesn't cover electronic sources.

If anyone's UWC has better Turabian info than DBU, I bet it's Bucknell's. I know of one error, however: on page 6, they have a period and not a comma following the author's name for a footnote. I don't think that ever happens: certainly not with a standard Turabian magazine article: see Turabian manual, 11.41.

Sorry, lovely ladies, gallant gentlemen, but I take that back about Bucknell. If anyone's better than we are, it's probably Diana Hacker. She's actually inspired an adjustment in our Turabian packet (we implied that the Bible should be included in list of Works Cited, but this is optional). I am VERY IMPRESSED. This is probably THE BEST TURABIAN resource online for footnotes/endnotes. On average, DBU's Writing Center is arguably the better Turabian resource, however, for having information on the Turabian author-date system; I think Diana Hacker doesn't have any resources on these, but maybe I just didn't look hard enough.

Now, for the depressing part. I didn't see any errors in her footnotes; but the sample paper she provided is, as far as I can tell, problematic for the following reasons:

--blockquotes not single-spaced.

--title page doesn't seem to be standard Chicago/Turabian style

--content of header should be centered in footer on first page and first page of works cited page

Unfortunately, my own UWC's Turabian sample paper (available online only to those DBU students who are enrolled in online courses) is practically guaranteed to be have a few errors.