Comprehensive Feedback Report: Mozart Sonata for Two Pianos Analysis

This report provides a comprehensive feedback analysis of an assignment focusing on Mozart's Sonata for Two Pianos. The report evaluates several key aspects, including the coherence and relevance of the title, the clarity and effectiveness of the opening and closing paragraphs, and the strength of the argumentation. It also assesses the quality of research, presentation, and referencing, highlighting both strengths and weaknesses. Specific areas for improvement are identified, such as enhancing the research's precision and relevance, correcting grammatical errors, and adhering to proper referencing guidelines. The report emphasizes the need to avoid using Wikipedia as a source and to improve in-text citations. Overall, the feedback aims to help improve the overall quality of the analysis and the student's ability to present the argument effectively.

Feedback
1 | P a g e

Section/Concept Mark (100) Comment
Title 3/4
The title reflects one of the
required components, and
thus, it can be considered as
coherent and relevant to the
entire part written within the
article.
Opening paragraph 10/12
Few of the required
components have been
highlighted in the start of the
paragraph. Moreover, it states
that the basis of the
experiments done. The article
helps in maintaining the
reader's interest.
Argument 20/24 The argument produced
throughout the paper was
coherent, and it was made
strictly to the question of
playing of Mozart Sonata for
two pianos for 10 minutes.
Research 21/20 The research is good, but there
are few more points related to
the topic that needs to be
included and supported with
evidence. There were few of
the errors found within the
sources and the statements.
Less number of factual
mistakes, as well as the
content, seems to be good.
Presentation 14/20 The presentation could be
made better as some of the
parts were unclear and not
associated with the following
paragraphs effectively. The
work contains numerous
grammatical errors such as the
use of prepositions, and many
2 | P a g e

other points were missing.
There exists crucial
requirement to enhance the
grammatical mistakes as well
as the sentence structure could
be improved as per the
satisfaction level. The impair
comparison was made
between lines and the inter-
lined connectivity between
lines were missing.
Closing paragraph 10/12 The Closing paragraph seems
to be quite clear, and it
reflected the entire idea
regarding the writing piece.
Moreover, it incorporated two
of the main parts those were
revealed throughout the paper.
The formation of the sentence
structure in the closing
paragraph was sufficient and
clear to bring out the main
idea of the article. Moreover,
there are scopes for improving
the grammatical parts which
will help in enhancing the
overall quality of the task too
great extent.
Referencing 1/8 The references are unclear,
and Wikipedia should not be
used for reference as the
contents can be easily be
changed on Wikipedia, so
whether it is correct or wrong,
we cannot guarantee. On the
other hand, the in-text citation
is also wrong as entire website
link has been pasted to one
place. The strict referencing
pattern and rules need to be
followed.
3 | P a g e

Prioritized suggestions for improvement
1. The research needs to be improved to precise and definite about the relevancy of the
topic.
2. The grammatical mistakes need to be lowered down, and there needs to be the
improvement on prepositions and interconnection of two sentences as to make the
meaning more appropriate.
3. The referencing needs to be improved, and the referencing guidelines should be strictly
followed. The use of Wikipedia should be stopped for referencing as sometimes the
content pasted on it is wrong. The content of Wikipedia can be edited and therefore there
increases the chances of getting wrong or incorrect information regarding the particular
topic.
4. Moreover, the in-text referencing needs to be correct for online website references.
4 | P a g e