can you rewrite the following sentences to make it more academic-like? This research pedagogically benefits me a lot in academic writing, especially when I have been trying to examine the limitation section. Another paper chosen by group 1 is also pedagogically valuable in the writing of the introduction section. This corpus-based study is well organized in structure and the whole research is well designed and reasonably analyzed both by experiments and data analysis, and is with reliable analyzing applicants. Each step was detailedly explained and the selection of corpus and analysis applicants were sufficiently justified, which is a must for systematic research as well as a qualified one. However, there still exist some problems concerning its methodology design. And the following are evaluations in its methodology section. 
(1)	Research Questions (p4.)
 This study aims to compare the acknowledgement of limitations in PhD dissertation and RA (Research Article) conclusion sections in applied linguistics. However, here comes the first problem--insufficient compilation of the research materials. Some specific limitations may only be mentioned in other sections rather than barely in the conclusion or limitation section, and thus will not be detected if this study only extracts materials from the conclusion and limitation section. Secondly, the acknowledgement of limitations in PhD dissertation and RA conclusion sections may vary from field. This is to say, the limitations of a PhD dissertation on phonetics may be slightly different from a research article in pragmatics. Next, it is not illustrated why the researchers see the PhD students as a novice and RA writers as an expert while comparing these two different genres of research study papers. Here in this study, this identification seems to be taken for granted.
(2)	Compilation of the corpus (p4.)
This study compiled 100 PhD dissertations in applied linguistics from a wide range of prestigious universities in China and a total of 200 empirical research articles randomly selected from seven prestigious journals as the corpus. However, the time range was not made clear, and the reason why the journals were selected was not clarified though the seven journals indeed have been considered qualified in applied linguistics for a very long time. If I were the researcher, I would explain further and clearly the selection criteria here, e.g., the dissertation's source and the field. And I will add one more sentence to explain why the seven journals were chosen. 
(3)	Annotation and analysis (p5.)
In this section, the researchers mentioned Hyland and Jiang’s evaluation standard of research limitations. However, the criteria proposed by them were mainly on peer-reviewed articles, concerning why they were rejected. Therefore, it is of some doubt employing their criteria in evaluating limitations. 
What’s more, the fourth criterion “Writer’s competence” used here for refining groupings seems to be in different aspects from the other three. 
(4)	Generalizability of its conclusion (p11.)
Since this corpus study only employed Chinese EFL PhD dissertations as one of the research objects, there should be a question considering its universality in applying their results to other fields of academic writing. The researcher should make it clear that the outcomes of this study are meant to specifically research studies and dissertations in applied linguistics.