# data[].attributes.body
65 - 69%

The literature review presents a thorough and well-structured exploration of how business analytics can enhance the Indian tourism industry. It effectively identifies research gaps and integrates both global and local perspectives. However, the review would benefit from clearer sentence construction, reduced repetition, and deeper critical analysis of sources. Strengthening these areas will improve readability and elevate the academic quality of the work.

# data[].attributes.body
Strong understanding of the potential for business analytics to transform India’s tourism industry. But too many grammatical errors and shallow analysis. Grade 62%

# data[].attributes.body
64%, Deeprt synthesis and more critical evaluationcan improve the grade.

# data[].attributes.body
Would give around 60-65%

Repetitive and overly descriptive rather than critically analytical.

Poorly structured - sections blend without clear progression or focused argumentation.

# data[].attributes.body
Good and relevant examples, but there are grammatical errors. Need to improve clarity and sentence structure. 63%

# data[].attributes.body
Marks: 55%

Justification: The overall quality is limited by frequent grammatical errors, a lack of critical analysis, and minimal academic referencing. The writing is often descriptive rather than evaluative, with weak integration of scholarly sources and some structural repetition.

# data[].attributes.body
The literature review gives a clear and detailed look at how AI is changing the music industry, from making music to how it's shared and heard. It uses good examples, but the writing could be clearer, with better grammar, consistent references, and more discussion of different views and ideas. It is B- although it has covered good amound of reference but require structural imporvement

# data[].attributes.body
Grade: 52-55

As a literature review chapter it didn’t discuss much literature and little citation were available

# data[].attributes.body
Grade :45-55%

Inconsistency in explaining

Not in text citation

Explained more in pointers

Does not look academically appealing

Not much of previous literature provided

Overall - 49%

# data[].attributes.body
This literature review offers a thorough and insightful look at how AI and Machine Learning are reshaping the music industry, particularly in production, distribution, and artist roles. The use of real-world tools and platforms like AIVA and Spotify adds relevance and depth to your analysis.

However, frequent grammar issues, awkward phrasing, and misuse of pronouns (e.g., “It” instead of “they”) affect clarity and academic tone. The structure could also be improved with clearer headings and more concise writing. Additionally, the conceptual framework needs proper development with both a diagram and explanation.

With careful editing for language, tone, and structure, this literature review will become a strong and impactful part of your dissertation.

Grade: 65%

# data[].attributes.body
Stronger use of academic sources is needed. Grade 65%

# data[].attributes.body
Better than 1. Not critical enough. Little evaluation. Some research gap highlighted. 62

# data[].attributes.body
Would give between 40-50%

In the signposting, the author talks about discussing the impact of AI in music in a sentence and put a reference that didn’t correlate.

-There was some minor grammar error.

-The author started with a good introduction of what his aim chapter is.

-The diagrams referenced are missing.

-He referenced himself as the source of Figure 2.7.

-Conceptual Framework is not explained.

-The literature review lacked contrast. It lacked contrasting between different works.

# data[].attributes.body
60%

Requires theoretical support, could have benefited from a smoother narrative, and is lacking in critical analysis.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Many paragraphs without in text citation

2. Lack of comparing authors, missing names of „critics and scholars…”

3. Missing clear objectives for work and research questions could be numbered because it is something what will be used later

4. Structure looks like some subsection should have number (ie 2.2.1 Non-Professional users)

5. Mix US and UK English ( ie Optimization)

mark 50-55%

# data[].attributes.body
Would give around 55-60%

inconsistency

Reference list - missing in-text citation

No formal list of bibliography

# data[].attributes.body
Not enough references so not a literature review. Too descriptive, ineffectiveevaluation of the sources. No linker sentences between paragraphs. No research gap identified. 55.

# data[].attributes.body
Would give it a 50%- 55%

-References are incomplete and very inconsistent

-poor grammar and frequent misuse of pronouns

(Big P )

# data[].attributes.body
55 : it not critical enough.

# data[].attributes.body
Not enough references and no reference when quoting. Too descriptive.

# data[].attributes.body
52%. Not enough references and rather descriptive, not showing clear synthesis and opposing viewpoints. Grammatical errors.