it’s a rewrite of my failed exam. please make sure to answer the questions listed, read through the teachers feedback and use the documents provided for clarification.
– Language and style (academic tone of voice, quality of written English, transparency)
The text has some issues with grammar and syntax. Occasionally verbs are missing, or there are bumpy transitions from sentence to sentence.
Teachers Feedback:
– Structure (coherence, sequence, connections within and between paragraphs/subsections)
You make good use of sections, however the information within the section is not always cohesive. There is the occasional conceptual leapfrog, where you leapfrog from one concept to the next without allowing the reader to see the connection. Please visit the in-text comments I have left.
– Choice of concepts/ideas/discussions from the course literature (relevance to the case, richness,
range of coverage):
There is a solid choice of concepts (creative class, social imaginary of urban nature, public space).
Occasionally you will use a source that doesn’t appear suiting to what you have been discussing.
– Explanation of relevant concepts/ideas/discussions from course literature (clarity, precision,
conciseness, depth)
Gentrification is treated quite well. The rest however becomes overly complicated and to some extent vague. Under public space, there are quite a few concepts mentioned, but not fully operationalised on the case. This section offers more statements and suggestions to the municipality than an application of theory.
Under Urban Green Spaces, it would be good to establish early on a coherent narrative. How is Wiels an urban green space according to theory? What does it offer, why do we care? Currently there is a confusion between green gentrification, sustainability, and ecosystem services, without making very clear what you try to achieve in this section.
– Discussion/argument (interpretation of the course literature, use of concepts/ideas to
discuss/reflect on the case, normative statements must be sustained with literature)
The approach is given early on, not so much of an argument but definitely a scope.
The structure however hinders from having a clear view on what you have discussed and what is the line of argumentation?
The conclusion doesn’t summarise much what has been discussed
