Reference no: EM132354312

Sources

• Are there at least five sources?

• Is each source from an academic journal or an EDITED, SCHOLARLY BOOK chapter?Check the specific citation for books to ensure it is an edited, scholarly work.

• Are at least two sources from 2011-present?

• Are the sources diverse? Explain why or why not?

General

• Is the draft between 4-5 pages?

• Is it double spaced, with the heading on the first page (top left)? Is the shortened title and page number in the header of each page? Note areas that need to be fixed.

• Is the title informative, interesting, provocative and/or creative? Suggest two ways this can be improved.

Introduction

• Does it clearly present the narrowed topic or area of inquiry?

• Is this topic narrowed sufficiently that it can be discussed completely in a paper of 10 - 15 pages? Suggest two ways this can be improved.

• Is the topic's significance to its audience included? Suggest two ways this can be improved.

• Is there an overview statement regarding the state of current knowledge and what needs further study? Suggest two ways this can be improved.

• Is there a thesis statement that provides the author's evaluation of the state of current knowledge of the topic and of what needs further study? Does it anticipate the specific research question that should be contemplated at the end of the Lit Review? Suggest two ways this can be improved.

Summary

• How is the summary section organized? There should be a clear, cohesive organization with each paragraph or section focusing on one aspect of the research ( including, but not limited to, the issues or aspects studied, the accepted interpretations or theories, the disputed claims, and any unanswered questions.

• Is this organization appropriate for this paper? Suggest an alternate, very specific pattern of organization.

Discussion & Evaluation

• Does the discussion and evaluation section follow the same organizational pattern that the summary section follows? If not, why does it deviate from that pattern - and would it work better if done clifferently?Suggest two ways this can be improved.

• Is each area of discussion interpreted and evaluated comprehensively? Is the analysis thorough, with complete explanation?

• Are questions for further study brought forth in this section? Suggest two ways this can be improved.

• Are any new article introduced in this section that aren't in the summary section? Is there any use of thefirst person in this section?

Conclusion

• Does the conclusion synthesize the knowledge confirmed through the discussion and evaluation section while identifying areas for further research?

• Is it clear, after reading the Lit Review, what is known about this topic?

• Is it clear, after reading the Lit Review, what is NOT known about this topic?

• Is there a clear connection between any new areas of inquiry and the summary of existing knowledge? This is an area often overlooked - if it's NOT present, he sure to note that.

Suggest two ways this can be improved.

• Is there a clearly identified narrow research question? Is it discussed? Is it sufficient to drive the research for a 10-15 page paper?

• Does the research question attempt to advance already-existing knowledge. or does it rehash research that already exists?

• Is the research question a yes/no, good/bad, for/against, pro/con, either/or, right/wrong, or

• moral/immoral kind of question?

Attachment:- Literature-The transformation of Chinese Manufacturing Industry.rar