Name: Nazrin Mammadova Score (out of 100): 84

Content (out of 50): 38

You cover useful ground in this essay and I think you explain the main issues well. However, I think
your essay needed some more clarification in places. Firstly, I had a problem with your claim that
‘probably Charles did not understand the role of a king’. It would have been helpful here to
distinguish between Charles’ personality and his view of himself as king. On the one hand, he was
extremely stubborn and unwilling to compromise and this did annoy a lot of people; on the other,
his view of his kingship was fairly conventional – he was only expressed the common view of the
time that his was God’s representative on earth (and even the Parliamentary side accepted this
until the very end of his life – see the Catechism for example). I would like to have seen a more
nuanced treatement of this issue. Similarly with religion: why was it such a ‘hot potato’ in
seventeenth England and what exactly what were the Parliamentarians afraid of? I would like to
have seen a clearer sense in which things changed over time. The Science Revolution and the
Enlightenment started after the Civil War. A bit more detail from your own knowledge would have
been good, especially when discussing the sources.

Organization (out of 25): 23

Generally clear and logical. But a little more reference to the question would have helped.

Language (out of 25): 23

Generally good but a few grammar errors in places and it could have been a bit more academic in
places. There were some problems with verb forms e.g. ‘to face’ or ‘to be faced with’ not ‘to face
with’.

Thank you for your kind words about the course – I’m glad you enjoyed it.

Dear Nazrin, I’m sorry about the delay – my fault entirely. Are you planning on doing another essay and,
if so, which one?
Best, PT

Name: Nazrin Mammadova Score (out of 100): 95

Content (out of 50): 48

There are many excellent aspects to this essay: it’s wide-ranging, well researched and you make
excellent use of primary source material to support your points. It’s also balanced and subtle.
However, there is just one significant problem: you provide a clear and direct answer to the first
part of the question; you don’t do so for the second part. Instead you answer it only implicitly by
mentioning lots of technological and non-technological aspects without explicitly distinguishing
them.

Organization (out of 25): 24

Excellent intro and easy to follow throughout. However, it would have been better if you had built
your essay around the question more (see above)
Language (out of 25): 23

Your style is very clear and easy to follow which is good. However, you there are a few grammar
problems e.g. articles (the 20s), future in the past, tenses (using present simple instead of past
simple). ‘It wasn’t as shocking as in other countries, or as it would have been in America earlier.’
Also, I would encourage you to use moderating phrases when you’re talking about something that
you can’t prove and isn’t certain e.g. ‘The changes influenced women much more than men’ feels
like a sweeping and unsubstantiated generalization; however, I know what you mean. It would
have been better to begin the sentence with something like ‘It could be argued that…’ or use ‘seem
to have influenced’ or even ‘may have’ etc.