Fixed for consistency and pluralisation. Anyway, it mostly seems right, and I'd definitely enter the two different articles as separate references as they're from an anthology and so are effectively different articles. There are a few other things that might vary depending on the particular style you're using - for instance you might want a colon after the in, and a pp. before the page numbers, but all this stuff depends on the particular house style and consistency is more important.
Lol, I'm getting used to proof-reading papers.
Edit: Oh, and check you don't need a full stop after the author's name.
If you're citing a whole book or similar (e.g. a PhD Dissertation) then you should generally put page numbers unless you're just citing an extremely general claim. For instance, if you have a book about the decline of vanilla pods, you can say, "Various researchers have claimed vanilla pods are in decline; see the references in Atkinson (2007)," but for something for specific, it has to be, "Atkinson (2007:265-267) describes the life cycle of the vanillin weevil." And if a book has multiple authors, you can only cite that book by referring to all the authors, even if you're just quoting an article within the book by one of the authors. In this case, and definitely with anthologies, you should cite the article itself, as you did. One more illustration: let's say there's a book by Peters, Abrigado and Loath. You can say, "Peters et al. (2004:243) note that in addition weevils have remarkable aptitude for solving mysteries," but if instead the book is an anthology and you're citing an article by Abrigado, it's, "By contrast Abrigado's (2004) claim that Poirot was a weevil is baseless and unfounded," with the reference citing the specific article in the book. Note that et al. is usually used for three or more authors only - with two, just list both with and.