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.
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
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!
I observed a
A 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 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 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) 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.
Doing an extensive ly 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.
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/.“
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.
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.
Kom je ergens niet uit? Geen probleem, wij staan altijd voor je klaar.
Zowel het originele als het geredigeerde bestand wordt 12 maanden op onze server bewaard. Daarna worden de bestanden automatisch verwijderd. Je kunt je bestanden ook al eerder verwijderen in je gebruikersaccount.
Tip: Als je je zorgen maakt over vertrouwelijke informatie in je document, kun je een aantal dingen doen om je tekst te anonimiseren:
Scribbr kan geen geheimhoudingsverklaringen ondertekenen. Elke geheimhoudingsverklaring is complex en uniek en ons juridische team is niet groot genoeg om elke verklaring die we ontvangen te onderzoeken.
We doen echter ons uiterste best om de vertrouwelijkheid van je documenten te garanderen.
Op onze pagina over privacy en veiligheid kun je hier meer over lezen.
Scribbr is gespecialiseerd in het controleren van studiegerelateerde documenten (mbo, hbo, wo en postdoc). Naast scripties kijken wij dus ook na:
Wij controleren geen andersoortige teksten zoals boeken, manuscripten of webpagina’s.
Ja, de editors van Scribbr werken in het weekend en tijdens de feestdagen door.
Doordat we een grote groep editors beschikbaar hebben, kunnen wij je scriptie 24 uur per dag en zeven dagen per week controleren. De nakijktermijn is inclusief het weekend en de meeste feestdagen.
Kies jij voor de nakijktermijn van 72 uur en upload jij je scriptie op donderdagavond? Dan krijg je uiterlijk zondagavond je scriptie nagekeken terug.