Literature Review Exercise by Betty Aidoo-Anderson

2025-06-23 10:46:44 UTC

52%. Not enough references and rather descriptive, not showing clear synthesis and opposing viewpoints. Grammatical errors.

2025-06-23 10:48:07 UTC

Not enough references and no reference when quoting. Too descriptive.

2025-06-23 10:50:39 UTC

55 : it not critical enough.

2025-06-23 10:51:20 UTC

Would give it a 50%- 55%

-References are incomplete and very inconsistent

-poor grammar and frequent misuse of pronouns

(Big P )

2025-06-23 10:53:18 UTC

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

2025-06-23 10:54:22 UTC

Would give around 55-60%

inconsistency
Reference list - missing in-text citation
No formal list of bibliography

2025-06-23 10:55:04 UTC

Many paragraphs without in text citation
Lack of comparing authors, missing names of „critics and scholars…”
Missing clear objectives for work and research questions could be numbered because it is something what will be used later
Structure looks like some subsection should have number (ie 2.2.1 Non-Professional users)
Mix US and UK English ( ie Optimization)
mark 50-55%

2025-06-23 10:55:20 UTC

60%

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

2025-06-23 10:55:45 UTC

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.

2025-06-23 10:57:25 UTC

Better than 1. Not critical enough. Little evaluation. Some research gap highlighted. 62

2025-06-23 10:58:05 UTC

Stronger use of academic sources is needed. Grade 65%

2025-06-23 11:00:12 UTC

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%

2025-06-23 11:01:52 UTC

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%

2025-06-23 11:01:56 UTC

Grade: 52-55

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

2025-06-23 11:01:59 UTC

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

2025-06-23 11:03:00 UTC

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.

2025-06-23 11:03:16 UTC

Good and relevant examples, but there are grammatical errors. Need to improve clarity and sentence structure. 63%

2025-06-23 11:03:30 UTC

Would give around 60-65%

Repetitive and overly descriptive rather than critically analytical.
Poorly structured - sections blend without clear progression or focused argumentation.

2025-06-23 11:03:58 UTC

64%, Deeprt synthesis and more critical evaluationcan improve the grade.

2025-06-23 11:04:35 UTC

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

2025-06-23 11:06:27 UTC

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.