De editor past taalfouten in de tekst direct aan en geeft je feedback in de kantlijn. Daarnaast krijg je persoonlijke tips om je schrijfvaardigheid te verbeteren.
Wij maken je document leesbaar en verbeteren de taalfouten direct in je document via Wijzigingen Bijhouden in Word. Daarnaast geeft de editor je suggesties en tips in opmerkingen in de kantlijn.
Bekijk het voorbeeld hieronder of download het als een docx-bestand.
I observed aA striking resemblance has been seenbetween the success rates of the Netherlands and that ofthe US. In the study byMartynova and Renneboog (2010)it already became clear found that shareholder protection was almost equal between the US and the Netherlandsin both countries. This correspondedcorresponds to the fact that they both have a success rate is of approximately the 40%.
At least oneMore than 1 hedge fund acquired a share in 14the company in fourteen of the 36 listed companies in my database. Of these, 10 of thosewere working together to achieve certain goals. The hedge funds held a share in the company for an average length of hedge funds holding a share in the company is531 days. Although Brav et al. (2008) consideredmay find this long-term period, I consider 531 days is still to be seen as to be short-term.
The average percentage of voting power is initial ranges between 8.06% and the maximum voting power is 10.10%. From By looking at this data, it can be concluded that hedge funds are not generally involved in acquiring controlling blocks of stock.
Due to the fact that Because shareholders have an opportunity to go to the OK, they have a fair reasonable chance of getting having their demands fulfilled. The OK likes prefers to solve disputes between shareholders and management by taking enacting provisional measures that improve the dialogue between the two parties. As a consequence, the parties often find compromises. Defensive measures that are taken by the management takes only to oppress shareholders are prohibited, and minority shareholders can change how they are treated by if a majority files an appeal.
Discussion
Conducting Doing an extensively study of the shareholder activism undertaken by hedge funds in the Netherlands over a for the past decade required a great deal of precise work. But although Even though I didn’t not use any private information, this study pretty nice gives a provides insight into hedge fund activism in the country.
Voorbeeldopmerking van de editor:
“Since you indicated that personal pronouns can be used in your thesis, consider using the active voice here. This is a simple way to make your writing clearer and more compelling. You can read more about the active voice here: https://www.scribbr.com/academic-writing/prefer-active-passive-sentence-constructions/.”
Voorbeeldopmerking van de editor:
“The extent to which this is an obvious consequence of the information you’ve provided is not entirely clear. Please make this relationship more apparent. Reviewing your linking word choices may help you here.”
Voorbeeldopmerking van de editor:
“Please ensure that your discussion section meets all the requirements included in this checklist. In particular, you have not yet discussed the study limitations: https://www.scribbr.com/thesis/writing-conclusion-discussion-thesis/#what-does-the-discussion-look-like.”
Example comment for Proofreading & Editing service:
“This is an example of an inflated phrase. Learn how to recognize such phrases and tighten your writing here: https://www.scribbr.com/academic-writing/write-shorter-sentences-clarify-dissertation/.“
Naast het verbeterde document ontvang je een persoonlijk verbetervoorstel over taalfouten die je structureel maakt.
Zo helpen we je op weg om in de toekomst beter te schrijven.
Sarah
Scribbr-editor
Dear Wendy,
I enjoyed reading and editing your thesis. I found your topic very interesting! Even though your paper was already rather well-written, I’ve made many adjustments to improve the academic quality of the text.
Based on your work, I’ve provided some concrete tips to help you recognize and correct your most common mistakes. These suggestions are intended to help you become a better writer.
Word-level grammatical and spelling mistakes
Word choice
Sentence-level grammatical mistakes
Style and academic tone
I hope you find my comments helpful as you finalize your thesis. Good luck accepting all the changes!
Cheers,
Sarah
Language / Grammar / Capitalization
The names of theories, models, disciplines and ideas should generally not take capital letters.
Despite what the Utility Maximization Model utility maximization model suggests, people do not always act in their own self-interest—a significant finding in Behavioral Economics behavioral economics.
Language / Punctuation / Apostrophes
Apostrophes should not be used to make plurals. This also applies to abbreviations, acronyms and decades.
The six NGO’s NGOs were especially active in the 1970’s 1970s.
Academic style / Word choice / Tone
Academic writing is generally more formal than other kinds of writing—avoid casual, everyday language and slang.
A lot of Many studies have tried to find out determine why we remember certain photos photographs but not others.
Academic style / Word choice / Repetition and redundancy
Good academic writing is concise—it doesn’t use more words than necessary to make a point. If one or two words can take the place of several, choose the shorter option.
In the year of 2018, the researchers interviewed a total of 75 individuals in order to better understand the concept of platform-based work.
Academic style / Conventions / Abbreviations
An acronym should not start a sentence, as this is typically considered too informal. Either revise the sentence so that the acronym no longer comes first, or spell out the full term.
NGOs Non-governmental organizations provided their input during the planning phase.
In het Verbeterrapport (of Most Common Mistakes) staan jouw belangrijkste aandachtspunten op het vlak van taal en academisch schrijven op een rij. Zo helpen we je op weg om in de toekomst beter te schrijven.
Bij de Structuur Check geeft de editor feedback op problemen met de structuur, zoals herhaling en overbodige informatie, de overgang tussen zinnen en paragrafen en het gebruik van kopjes.
Daarnaast ontvang je een Structuurrapport waarin je informatie vindt over de indeling in hoofdstukken en paragrafen. In het rapport staan alle onderdelen en elementen die nog ontbreken of op de verkeerde plek in het document staan. Je krijgt hierbij altijd een link naar een van onze uitgebreide artikelen die je kunnen helpen om het probleem op te lossen.
Abstract AddConsider writing an abstract to give readers a concise summary of your research and to help potential readers to decide whether to read the full paper. |
Abstract: Relevance of the research AddMake sure the abstract clearly outlines why your research is necessary and/or what gap in the literature you’re seeking to address. Since you’re an expert on this topic, its relevance might seem obvious to you, but remember that it’s important to spell things out explicitly for readers so that they can follow along. |
Literature review: Transitions between sections ReviseConsider introducing transitions to bridge the individual paragraphs of your document. This approach will make it easier for the reader to grasp how each new paragraph fits into your discussion, which will make your writing more cohesive (and therefore more compelling) overall. |
Results: Mention of methods RemoveAfter a brief introduction to the chapter, it’s best to jump right into presenting the results themselves. In most cases, there is no need to re-review the methods or other elements of the research in the results chapter. |
Discussion: Interpretation of results AddThe discussion is the place to interpret the results. In this section, you might consider whether and how the results support the literature, address the implications of the results, and generally explore the contribution of the research in more detail. |
Conclusion ShortenA conclusion section is usually relatively short and to the point. It seems like you may have included some unnecessary details in this section. I’d therefore recommend revising this section with an eye on making sure you’re providing information that is relevant and important. |
Als je de Rode Draad Check hebt aangevraagd, vult de editor twee checklists in waarmee je tekst op logica en duidelijkheid wordt gecontroleerd. De editor geeft ook advies om de duidelijkheid van je tekst te kunnen verbeteren in opmerkingen in de kantlijn van je document.
The text has a logical beginning, middle, and end.
Feedback editor: Your paper has a clear trajectory with a beginning, middle, and end. You’ve done an excellent job of exploring your thesis that democracy always leads to demagogy. Nice work!
The argumentation makes sense.
Feedback editor: You talk about 50 people who disagree with the current political situation, but you do not specify the sources that substantiate this claim. I also recommend that you look at your statement that democracy is the best form of government. The question here is “According to whom?” If this is your own opinion, you need to make that clearer.
The information is presented in a logical order.
Feedback editor: Remember that your readers haven't studied this topic as much as you have. Be sure to give them the information they need to understand your arguments. For example, at the end of the introduction, explain the terms "macropartisanship" and “deterritorialization” to ensure your readers understand these concepts. In addition, I recommend elaborating on the related studies, so your readers have a proper framework for understanding your research.
The information seems valid and reliable based on the argumentation.
The text does not contain any unintentionally contradictory information or arguments.
Feedback editor: In Section 4.1, you state that no respondents were satisfied with the current situation. However, in your conclusion, you say that three respondents had no opinion. Be sure to reconcile these points or make corrections if necessary.
No information that is relevant for further understanding of the text seems to be missing.
The examples used are relevant.
Feedback editor: Yes, absolutely. However, you have included more than enough examples to make your point. In the comments, I've highlighted examples that you might consider deleting to keep your paper focused and concise.
You take into account that the reader might not know everything about this topic.
Feedback editor: You might consider adding more historical background information in Section 3.2 when you discuss democracy in the Middle East. At present, that discussion implies a high level of background information on the part of readers. It’s okay to assume that your readers have some familiarity with the events you’re talking about, but adding a few reminders for readers would be helpful. For example, the first time you refer to Mubarak, you might add an aside telling readers that he was Egypt’s president from 1981 to 2011.
The subject of the document is clear.
The purpose of the document is clear.
Feedback editor: Your goal is clear in principle, but only after reading the entire text. I recommend making this clearer earlier on. You can do so by explaining the factors that led you to form your hypothesis that democracy always leads to demagogy in the Introduction chapter.
The most important question to be answered in the document is clear.
Feedback editor: Although I understand what you want to say, you have not specifically stated what the final conclusion of your text is. You should therefore take a careful look at my comment on page 54.
The answer to the above question, namely the conclusion, is clear.
The methods used to arrive at this answer are clear.
Terms are explained in a clear and precise manner.
Feedback editor: Yes. However, note that “macropartisanship" and “deterritorialization” need to be explained earlier, as I mentioned in the text logic checklist.
Further important information, such as the study’s limitations and recommendations, is described clearly.
We staan dagelijks klaar om jou te helpen via de chat, Whatsapp, email en de telefoon tussen 09.00 en 23.00 uur (CET).
Ja, ongeacht de gekozen deadline kunnen de editors van Scribbr jouw document tijdens het weekend en de feestdagen nakijken.
Voorbeeld: Als je de 24-uursdienst kiest op zaterdagavond krijg je je document uiterlijk zondagavond terug.
Bij Scribbr beloven we dat we iedere klant 100% tevreden maken met onze diensten. Onze filosofie is: iedere klacht is terecht.
Ons klantenserviceteam staat altijd klaar om een passende oplossing voor je te vinden, of het nou om het gratis opnieuw nakijken van je document of een terugstorting gaat.
Je kunt ons van maandag tot en met zondag tussen 09:00 en 23:00 bereiken. We zijn beschikbaar via de live chat, telefoon of e-mail en reageren direct.
Scribbr is gespecialiseerd in het controleren van studiegerelateerde documenten (mbo, hbo, wo en postdoc). We kijken de volgende soorten teksten na:
Wij controleren geen commerciële teksten zoals boeken of webpagina’s.
Ja, als je document langer dan 30.000 woorden is krijg je een voorproefje van ongeveer 2.000 woorden. Het voorproefje geeft je een eerste indruk van de manier waarop de editor je document nakijkt. Je krijgt dan ook de kans om feedback te geven of vragen te stellen.
Je ontvangt het voorproefje binnen 24 uur nadat je je order hebt geplaatst. Je hebt daarna 24 uur om ons te laten weten of je tevreden bent met het voorproefje of dat je nog feedback voor de editor hebt.
Nee, we maken geen onderscheid tussen Nederlandse en Engelse documenten. Onafhankelijk van de taal waarin je document geschreven is bieden we onze dienst vanaf € 0,011 per woord aan.
Bereken gemakkelijk je prijs met onze prijscalculator.
