Do you think this means pass or fail? Excluding the basic proof reading errors

[mummyrocks1]

So started a masters 15 years after having come out of education. We have a deadline for an essay and it's a pretty academic subject. I struggled with the essay but got a draft done which I was pretty happy with and sent it to the tutor to critique. I am a bit confused by her feedback.

From this, do you think she means I am in the right track, at a pass level but need to do these things to get a good pass OR at the moment it's a fail and I need to do these things to turn it into a pass?

•	You cover the right broad areas, but possibly spend too long discussing ???  and not enough discussing ? ?
•	Good use of section headings but at times the order is confusing - 
•	Some evidence of critical thinking and of an understanding of the complexity - for instance in the section on the ????- do more of this!
•	Remember to avoid the narrative/informal style such as:  We can see that it still lacks detail. 
•	Have a chat with the writing and learning centre and read more journal articles so the academic style starts to feel more natural to you
•	Be careful to avoid sounding like we know these things for certain - or that we know ???? for certain - it is all about building up theories from the evidence available (which changes over time)
•	Avoid sweeping statements or opinions (such as your concluding sentence)
•	Do some careful proofreading - there are some punctuation errors (such as unnecessary use of capital letters, we only need these for proper nouns
•	Avoid long quotations, wherever possible paraphrase in your own words

I have a week now to deadline and I am panicking now it's not going to pass.

I have replaced some details that might be outing with ? ??

I dont believe theres any judgement there.

Only critique of specifics.

It doea sound like you have produced a good level of academic work, but need to focus on your 'academic' style, and technical writing detail.

The comments do not include the level of current work, or potential after incorporating the changes suggested.

Notixe where the critical thinking is shown in your work and see if you can increase that to increase your grade.

You shouldbhave a clear marking plan that will show you exactly where your level according to the amount of critical thinking evident, along with sufficient discussion and balance.

I would review the comments alongside marking regime, or ask for that specific feedback?

Sorry, maybe someone else can offer something more concrete based on those comments. It does sound promising.

The reviewer should be saying if you were un likely to achieve a pass grade!

Make the changes they said to make, and all will be ok. You're unlikely to pass if you don't make those changes.

Thanks any minute. Yes, we got the marking criteria so I will look at that as I answer each point.

I guess I am worried about how I am going to tackle some of her points. Some of them are easy enough. But I did struggle to write in the academic style. I wasn't sure how to start my arguments so put in lots of- research suggests, so and so says this, this is supported by, this is criticised by etc. I think that's what she means by the academic style not being very natural. To be honest I am not sure how to rephrase them. Perhaps reading more journals as she suggested will provide examples.

The other bit I am struggling with is- talking about one area more. I thought I had talked about it lots. I am not sure what else to say about it. I admit it is currently just a narrative discussing it but not sure how I can make if more critical. It's discussing behaviour. I guess she wants me to find counter arguments for it to say that these behaviours might not be a direct link to the theory. So far I have not found anything. Does she want me to reference all the behaviours to the theorist behind them!

Academics have to be very careful when marking draft work. We can't say specifically that something is a pass etc because we leave ourselves open to complaints.

This feedback given is excellent and if you focus in addressing those issues I'm sure you'll be fine.

I would definitely reference all your assertions as drawn from the theorists behind them, based on their individual contributions to the given behaviour, and the extent to which that can be considered significant in your overall argument.

Your arguments to exolaintany given behaviour cannot just be opinion. Anywhere you see that you have done that seek out the source for that opinion, quoting it and its relevance.