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/.“
The document is organized in such a way that the central theme is apparent to the reader.
Editor feedback: I recommend introducing your central theme – the need for pharmaceutical trials to include more diverse participants – earlier in your paper. This way, your reader understands what your paper is about from the very beginning. See my comments for specific suggestions.
The text is organized in a logical and appropriate manner (chapters, sections and paragraphs).
Editor feedback: You’ve done a nice job of forming sections with clear themes. However, it’s not always clear how your sections support the main goal of your paper. As you revise, be sure to clearly link each section to your central theme or research question. This will help you build strong, interconnected arguments.
The text is without repetition.
Editor feedback: You've struck a nice balance between restating main ideas to help your readers follow along and avoiding unnecessary repetition that might distract or bore readers. Great job!
The text is without redundancies.
Editor feedback: I didn’t spot any extraneous material in your thesis.
The titles and headings are adequate, correct and consistent.
Editor feedback: A strong title should be informative, striking and appropriate. Your title is definitely striking. However, it could be more informative. I recommend rephrasing your title to specify the central theme of your paper. For more tips, check out this article: https://www.scribbr.com/academic-writing/forging-good-titles-in-academic-writing/.
The preface is no longer than four or five paragraphs.
Editor feedback: Great job with this section – you've thanked those people who played an especially important role in your work, and you've kept the tone professional throughout.
Only people who have actually helped have been thanked.
The thanks follow a functional order. Those who have contributed the most are named first.
The use of first and last names is consistent.
The preface is personal but is nevertheless written in a professional style.
The preface ends with your name, place name and the date at the time of writing.
Editor feedback: Typically, a preface should end with your name and the date and place of writing.
The abstract is a maximum of one A4 sheet of paper.
Editor feedback: You should be able to cut your abstract down to one page by single-spacing the text and removing the title/author information.
The abstract is placed after the preface and before the table of contents.
The objective is specified in the abstract.
Editor feedback: You simply write that you conducted your study to prove your hypotheses. Be more specific. What was the goal of your study?
The problem statement is given in the abstract.
The research questions or hypotheses are included in the abstract.
Editor feedback: You have hinted at the research questions that you formulate in your literature review, but you have not explicitly presented them. I have suggested a place where it would be helpful to add them.
The methodology and approach of your research are briefly explained.
A summary of the most important results is given.
The conclusion is given (the answer to your research question / problem statement).
Editor feedback: Be sure to clearly answer the research question in the abstract. The abstract should read like a miniature version of the entire paper.
The results have been discussed and explained (discussion).
Suggestions for follow-up research are presented.
Editor feedback: At the end of the abstract you should add a summary of the recommendations that you have included in chapter 7. This summary should include your ideas for future research.
Any recommendations are concisely discussed.
The abstract clarifies what the thesis is about (also for those without prior knowledge).
The introduction of the research is written with a stimulating topic.
Editor feedback: Opening with the broad significance of the topic will be helpful here.
The topic is limited.
The scientific relevance is demonstrated (not applicable to all theses).
The practical relevance is demonstrated.
Editor feedback: Here, you should describe the study’s relevance to pharmaceutical companies, along with any other practical applications.
The most important scientific articles about the topic are summarized (not applicable to all theses).
Editor feedback: I recommend summarizing the articles in your literature review, rather than simply listing them, as this will help your readers understand the starting point for your research.
The objective is formulated.
The problem statement is formulated.
The conceptual framework is determined.
The research questions or hypotheses are formulated.
Editor feedback: You have not mentioned your research questions in the “study objectives” section of the introduction (where they should typically be included). In my comments, I suggested an appropriate place to add them.
The research design is described briefly.
Editor feedback: You have not explained how your research is conducted. In my comments, I recommended a place in the “study objectives” section where you could add a brief explanation of your methodology.
The thesis overview is added.
Editor feedback: However, note that a thesis overview typically only covers the remaining sections; it’s not necessary to outline the Introduction for a second time here.
The research questions have been answered.
Editor feedback: You’ve answered two of your three research questions, but the answer to the final research question seems to be missing (see my in-text comment). I also recommend restating the research questions in the Conclusion; this will remind readers of exactly what questions you’ve been focusing on and will demonstrate that you’ve definitely answered those questions.
The main question or problem statement has been answered.
The hypotheses have been confirmed or refused.
The right verb tense has been used.
No issues are interpreted.
Editor feedback: I recommend avoiding interpretation (including giving your own opinion or making a call for further research) in the early sections of this chapter. Instead, stick to answering the research questions and addressing the hypotheses. I've left comments where the text veered in this direction. Save these elements for the Discussion.
No new information has been given.
Editor feedback: On page 181, you mention two cases (sickle cell disease and Tay-Sachs) that you have not mentioned in any previous chapter . Be sure not to mention new findings in the Conclusion. Either go back to an earlier chapter and make note of these instances, or else delete the reference from the Conclusion.
No examples are used.
No extraneous information is provided.
No passages from the results have been cut and pasted.
Editor feedback: Much of this section takes sentences from previous sections, almost verbatim. The conclusion should use varied language and go beyond simply summarizing the main points. I have provided further comments on this in the document.
The validity of the research is demonstrated.
New insights are explained.
Editor feedback: Rather than comparing, contrasting and synthesizing the analyses, this section essentially summarizes the reviews. Consider focusing more on the analysis piece here.
The limitations of the research are discussed.
Editor feedback: The research limitations are not discussed. Instead, the limitations of big data analytics are discussed. Consider this difference as you finalize your paper.
It is indicated whether expectations were justified.
Editor feedback: Consider elaborating on this in the discussion section.
Possible causes and consequences of the results are discussed.
Suggestions for possible follow-up research are made.
Editor feedback: Consider adding this aspect.
No issues have been interpreted.
There are no suggestions for follow-up research that are too vague.
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:
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.
Je document wordt nagekeken door een van onze Scribbr-editors: