Sure. They are fairly similar but mine is just a little cleaner looking, in my opinion. They are both for the same NSF grant proposals. I think it would be fine to update the other. I just wasn't sure how the style submission worked (for example, if there were many similar competing versions of styles that for styles that are not strictly defined). NSF mandates that all the authors be given regardless of how many. and they require the standard, title, journal, volume, pages. DOI or link is optional but encouraged. Aside from that, the details of inline format and bibliography format are open to interpretation and preference. Numerical inline is commonly preferred for space reasons. *Here is mine:* 1. Gugger PF, Liang CT, Sork VL, Hodgskiss P, Wright JW (2018) Applying landscape genomic tools to forest management and restoration of Hawaiian koa (Acacia koa) in a changing environment. *Evolutionary Applications*, 11(2):231–242. doi:10.1111/eva.12534 <https://doi.org/10.1111/eva.12534> 2. Pritchard JK, Stephens M, Donnelly P (2000) Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data. *Genetics*, 155(2):945–959. 3. Abrams MD (1998) The red maple paradox. *Bioscience*, 48:355–364. *And here is the other one:* 1. Gugger, P. F., Liang, C. T., Sork, V. L., Hodgskiss, P., and Wright, J. W. “*Applying Landscape Genomic Tools to Forest Management and Restoration of Hawaiian Koa (Acacia Koa) in a Changing Environment*” *Evolutionary Applications* 11, no. 2 (2018): 231–242. doi:10.1111/eva.12534 <https://doi.org/10.1111/eva.12534> 2. Pritchard, J. K., Stephens, M., and Donnelly, P. “*Inference of Population Structure Using Multilocus Genotype Data*” *Genetics* 155, no. 2 (2000): 945–959. 3. Abrams, M. D. “*The Red Maple Paradox*” *Bioscience* 48, (1998): 355–364.