Voorbeeld Redigeren en Nakijken Engelse Thesis

Voorbeeld: Nagekeken document

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 seen~~between the success rates of the Netherlands and ~~that of~~the US. ~~In the study by~~Martynova and Renneboog (2010)~~it already became clear~~ found that shareholder protection was almost equal ~~between the US and the Netherlands~~in both countries. This ~~corresponded~~corresponds to the fact that they both have a success rate is of approximately ~~the~~ 40%.

At least one~~More than 1~~ hedge fund acquired a share in 14~~the company in fourteen~~ of the 36 listed companies in my database. Of these, 10 ~~of those~~were 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 is~~531 days. Although Brav et al. (2008) considered~~may 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 did~~n’t~~ not use any private information, this study ~~pretty nice gives a~~ provides insight into hedge fund activism in the country.

1
Verbeteren taalfouten
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/.”
2
Rode Draad Check
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.”
3
Verbeteren taalfouten
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.”
4
Structuur Check
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/.“

Voorbeeld: Persoonlijke feedback

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.

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

You used a mix of British and American English spelling throughout your thesis. Consistency is important, especially in academic writing. In the future, remember to set your proofing language to “US English” so that spell check catches these errors.
Often, it is not clear what you’re referring to when you use pronouns such as “it” and “they” (in grammatical terms, the pronoun antecedents are ambiguous). In the text, I’ve marked where you should clarify the subject of a sentence. You can learn more about this issue and why it’s important here: https://www.scribbr.com/academic-writing/common-grammatical-problems-with-clarity-and-logic/.

Word choice

In many places, you used the incorrect definite article (“a” or “an”). Remember that an abbreviation that starts with a vowel sound when read aloud (such as “EU”) takes “an” rather than “a” (e.g., “an EU country”). You can review the rules for using articles here: https://www.scribbr.com/academic-writing/using-definite-and-indefinite-articles-in-a-dissertation/.
I’ve also made changes related to your use of prepositions, which are particularly tricky in English. Take a careful look at the comments I’ve made in the document to learn how to make your writing sound more fluid and natural.

Sentence-level grammatical mistakes

Long and complicated sentences can often be difficult for the reader to follow. In such cases, consider breaking the sentences into two or introducing punctuation to make them more readable.
Additionally, please note that as “et al.” means “and others,” so the verb that follows should be plural (e.g., “Wang et al. have suggested…”).

Style and academic tone

In academic writing, acronyms should be defined upon first use so that the reader can easily follow along. You can review the guidelines for using acronyms in academic writing here: https://www.scribbr.com/academic-writing/using-abbreviations-and-acronyms-in-a-thesis/.

I hope you find my comments helpful as you finalize your thesis. Good luck accepting all the changes!

Cheers,

Sarah

Incorrect capitalization of theories and models

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.

Unnecessary apostrophe to form the plural

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.

Informal language

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.

Inflated/redundant language

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.

Acronyms as sentence starts

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.

Voorbeeld: Verbeterrapport

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.

Structuur Check

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 Add

Consider 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 Add

Make 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 Revise

Consider 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 Remove

After 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 Add

The 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 Shorten

A 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.

Rode Draad Check

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 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.

Voorbeeld Engels nakijken

Voorbeeld: Nagekeken document

Verbeteren taalfouten

Rode Draad Check

Verbeteren taalfouten

Structuur Check

Voorbeeld: Persoonlijke feedback

Incorrect capitalization of theories and models

Unnecessary apostrophe to form the plural

Informal language

Inflated/redundant language

Acronyms as sentence starts

Voorbeeld: Verbeterrapport

Structuur Check

Abstract Add

Abstract: Relevance of the research Add

Literature review: Transitions between sections Revise

Results: Mention of methods Remove

Discussion: Interpretation of results Add

Conclusion Shorten

Rode Draad Check

Clarity: Checklist Text Logic

Clarity: Checklist Text Clarity

Klaar voor een Engelse thesis zonder taalfouten?

Nog vragen?

Vraag het ons

Veelgestelde vragen

Kan Scribbr een geheimhoudingsverklaring tekenen?