Each unclear point is tied back to the exact wording, the reason for the judgment, and its place in the revision order. Start with the highest-impact fixes, then open the paragraph notes for detail. Professor fit is grounded in public papers, funded projects, keywords, and official pages.
good prose is not an application.
needing lots of background means it is loose.
point to the prior work behind it, not to personal interest.
polishing cannot rescue a structural flaw.
cut to what two years can carry.
close items one by one instead of reading the summary.
The review reads the original plan and confirmed target. When a professor is selected, recent papers, funded projects, keywords, and official sources ground the topic-and-method comparison.
Research question, argument, literature, method, professor fit, significance, style, and format are checked in turn, with every judgment linked back to the draft.
Paragraph notes quote the relevant wording, explain why it needs attention, and offer a fact-preserving reference rewrite. Missing experience, references, and data are not filled in.
The highest-impact changes come first, followed by paragraph notes, professor-fit evidence, and items that still need confirmation. The revised plan can then support outreach and interview preparation.
As you prepare a graduate application, learn about the target department's field and research environment, then consider where your plan fits. If you have a professor in mind, connecting their work to your question gives you concrete grounds for revising the proposal or contacting them.
Prepare the research plan you want feedback on. Reviewing it can reveal how the question, prior work, methods, and intended field connect, with priority fixes tied back to the source text. A version close to what you plan to submit makes the next revision more useful.
Full scope · 8 criteria
The main review for a complete plan, with cross-checks across criteria.
Check the full scope and cross-check the argument, literature support and research methods.
