You shorten a few sentences and the chapter reads more smoothly. Then your supervisor asks: “Is this still the commentary author’s position, or is it now your own assessment?” Elsewhere, a negative has disappeared and an option has become an obligation. Proofreading a law master’s thesis therefore involves more than removing long words. The wording needs to improve while preserving who is making each claim, its basis and its qualifications.
This guide concerns an existing thesis in the subject area Law, written for a university in Poland. I explain how to check edited sentences and paragraphs before accepting changes throughout the document. I created all the sample passages below for this editing demonstration. They are not quotations from judgments, legislation or clients’ theses. The illustrative models do not describe rules currently in force.
Establish the meaning before polishing the sentence
In legal academic writing, a small phrase can carry an essential part of an argument. “According to the author” attributes a view to someone. “In the case being analysed” limits its scope. “If” introduces a condition. Removing these expressions as unnecessary decoration may shorten a sentence while changing its message. First state, in your own words, what the edited passage must continue to communicate.
Use four checks: whose position is being expressed, what is asserted, its scope and the degree of certainty. Compare all four before and after an edit. If the original does not identify the speaker or scope clearly, do not fill the gap by guessing. Return to the surrounding paragraph, the source used or your own notes. Sometimes the right editorial action is a question for the thesis author, rather than a replacement sentence.
You do not have to preserve every awkward construction. An empty opening can go; the verb can move closer to its subject; a sentence can be split. The test is whether the intended content survives, rather than whether a word target has been reached. If you are still constructing the argument and selecting positions, start with A master's thesis in law – how to build a legal analysis. Here, we work on passages that have already been written.
Five examples: what to improve and what not to add
Read each pair together with its explanation. The revision is safe under the stated interpretation of the passage. It is not a universal sentence to paste into any thesis. Where meaning needs confirmation, establish it with the author first. Fluent language cannot replace that decision. The examples are translated explanations of editing issues in a Polish academic setting, not instructions to adopt English legal conventions.
1. Separate a source author’s assessment from your own
Before: “The commentary author regards position A as incorrect, whereas in the present thesis this position is considered convincing.”
Safe revision: “The commentary author regards position A as incorrect. In this thesis, I consider position A convincing.”
What improves: the two assessments are clearly separated. Repeating “position A” is useful here: it prevents the thesis author’s view from being attributed to the source author. Use the first person if it fits the style agreed with your supervisor in Poland. “The author of this thesis considers” is another option. Either form must make the attribution clear.
Boundary: editing does not prove that position A is convincing. The thesis must supply the reasoning. Do not add “rightly” before reporting someone else’s assessment if the thesis author did not endorse it. That small word changes the relationship between reporting the literature and commenting on it.
2. Do not guess what a pronoun refers to
Before: “The chapter compares interpretation A with interpretation B. It is too broad.”
Safe revision after confirming that the thesis author is assessing A: “The chapter compares interpretation A with interpretation B. The thesis author considers interpretation A too broad.”
What improves: the reader no longer has to choose between two possible referents. Check expressions such as “the above”, “the relevant” or “the aforementioned” when the preceding paragraph contains several documents or arguments. Naming the referent can matter more than avoiding repetition. This does not mean every pronoun needs to be removed.
Boundary: without confirmation, neither the interpretation being assessed nor the person making that assessment is certain. An editor should ask, rather than select the last noun merely because it is closest. If the answer requires rereading the commentary, check the relevant source passage first.
3. Keep the condition and exception when splitting a sentence
Before: “In the model under discussion, a participant may request reassessment if they submit an additional document, except where that document has already been assessed.”
Safe revision: “In the model under discussion, a participant may request reassessment if they submit an additional document. The exception is where that document has already been assessed.”
What improves: a second sentence lightens the first without dropping the qualification. The reader still knows that this concerns a particular model and an additional document. Splitting the passage must not attach the exception to a different action or leave it in the next paragraph without a clear connection to the rule.
Boundary: this is a fictional example, not a real procedure. Do not casually change “if” to “only if”: that may add a claim that the condition is necessary. In an actual thesis, also establish whether the author is reporting a rule from a source or proposing a change to it.
4. Do not remove a negative while improving awkward wording
Before: “On the basis of the passage presented, it is not possible to conclude that the author rules out using option B.”
Safe revision: “The passage presented does not establish that the author rules out using option B.”
What improves: the sentence is tighter but still concerns the limits of the available material. It does not establish whether the author ultimately permits option B. Having insufficient grounds to attribute one position to someone does not prove that they hold the opposite view. This matters particularly when summarising an extract from a longer publication.
Boundary: “The author permits option B” would go beyond the original message. Search the edited passage for negatives and limiting expressions such as “only” or “at least”, then check their scope. Keeping the same words is not enough if the revision attaches them to a different part of the sentence.
5. Do not turn an entitlement into a duty
Before: “The rule adopted in the model gives rise to a participant’s entitlement to submit supplementary material.”
Safe revision: “The rule adopted in the model entitles the participant to submit supplementary material.”
What improves: the wording is shorter while preserving the same relationship. It does not add a duty to exercise the entitlement. “May”, “should” and “must” are not interchangeable stylistic options. Nor should “entitlement” automatically become “possibility” if the thesis distinguishes a right from someone’s practical ability to act.
Boundary: this example creates no real entitlement. When working with an actual source, an editor cannot independently decide whether wording expresses a command, recommendation or permission. If resolving the issue requires interpreting a provision, flag it and return to the author’s analysis rather than concealing the decision inside an edit.
A quotation, a source summary and your comment are different layers
Before editing a paragraph, identify which sentences are direct quotations, which report another person’s position and which express your assessment. Do not silently polish the syntax inside a quotation, even if it differs from the rest of the thesis. Compare it with the original first. Follow the requirements applicable to your thesis when marking omissions or interventions; do not present an edited version as an exact quotation.
A source summary allows a different sentence structure but still requires accurate meaning and a reference. A footnote at the end of a long paragraph may not show where reporting stops and your own position begins. Sometimes an explicit opening such as “The commentary author argues…” followed by a separate assessment is enough. Do not add attribution formulas mechanically to every sentence: use them to resolve a particular ambiguity.
Check the source’s scope too. If you used one paragraph from a commentary, the revised passage should not attribute a view about every possible situation to its author. Preserve limits relating to the problem, period and edition actually used. Mark missing page numbers or edition details for completion. Do not insert an arbitrary number merely to make a footnote look finished.
Preserve terminology and check repetitions and connectors
Repetition can be tiring in ordinary description. In a legal academic argument, consistently using an established term can help keep concepts distinct. Before replacing a term with a similar word, check whether they genuinely mean the same thing in this thesis. Keep a short working list of the terminology and abbreviations adopted. It need not become another chapter: a private editing note is enough.
Read the connecting words separately: “therefore”, “whereas”, “nevertheless” and “at the same time”. Adding “therefore” is not cosmetic if the author previously only placed two statements side by side. It suggests an inference. After editing, ask whether the preceding sentence actually supports the next one. If not, remove the unsupported connection or return to the reasoning that was meant to establish it.
After changing a sentence, check the whole paragraph
A sentence can be correct in isolation yet work poorly in context. After splitting a long passage, check whether the second sentence still develops the same point. If it begins with “however”, the reader needs to know what it challenges. If it mentions “this position”, its referent must be clear. Restoring a missing connection can matter more than further shortening. Do not remove information merely because the edit has left it in a short, separate paragraph.
Check the order too. Introducing a source, explaining it and assessing it need not always follow an identical sequence, but those functions must remain recognisable. Moving an assessment to the beginning may change how the whole paragraph is read. The reader may treat it as the thesis author’s principal position rather than a question still under consideration. When changing the order, compare not just the sentences’ content but also the role they play in the reasoning.
When a student writes in Polish as an additional language, it can help to ask what they intended before expressing the thought in the document’s language. A literal construction from another language may be awkward, but smoothing it must not decide the meaning of an uncertain concept. Ask for a short explanation and return to the Polish terminology adopted in the thesis. Linguistic fluency does not replace consistency with the source material.
What to do with “please improve the style”
Start with the passage identified, rather than shortening the entire document globally. Mark a difficult sentence and name the cause: an unidentified actor, a long interruption, an ambiguous pronoun, inconsistent terminology or a sudden shift into evaluation. Prepare a visible revision and check it within the paragraph. If the comment provides no example, ask your supervisor which passage best illustrates the issue.
A style comment may reveal a substantive gap. Replacing “merits approval” with a simpler phrase will not repair a sentence if the reader still cannot see why the thesis author supports the position. Flag the missing justification. Developing a new argument, finding literature and editing an argument already written are different tasks, and their scope should be distinguished before commissioning work.
How to review an edited passage, step by step
Keep the pre-editing file and work in an identified version. Track Changes makes interventions visible, but clicking “accept” does not verify that they are appropriate. First read the revised paragraph without being distracted by the markup, then compare it with the previous wording. This checks both readability and preservation of content.
- Identify the author of each reported assessment and compare it with the earlier version.
- Check negatives, conditions, exceptions and expressions of certainty or scope.
- Locate quotations in the original and make sure their boundaries have not changed.
- Connect each reference to the correct sentence; verify the page and edition actually used.
- Read the paragraphs before and after the edited passage to check the transitions.
- Resolve comments requiring your decision and preserve the final agreed version.
If reviewing one chapter leads you to change an adopted term, check its use in the introduction and conclusion too. Avoid an unthinking “replace all”: the same character string may occur in your own sentence, a publication title and a quotation. Those contexts require different treatment. During the final reading, set aside “does it sound elegant?” for a moment and ask “am I still making exactly the same claim?”.
When is this type of editing a fit for StudentSupport?
My name is Wioletta Boćkowska, and I have run StudentSupport since 2018. If you study law in Poland, already have a draft and need to improve its language, a useful starting point is the service “Bachelor’s and master’s thesis proofreading and editing”. The scope can be based on a specific chapter, feedback and the sources actually used. We will clarify what I will edit and which decisions about the argument still need your explanation.
If the main problem is referencing, the service “Reference list and citation corrections for your thesis” may fit better. For a set of supervisor comments, consider “Thesis revisions following supervisor feedback”. Writing missing chapters or a larger work is a different scope, discussed under “Bachelor’s and master’s thesis writing”. You do not need a larger writing assignment when an existing passage simply needs refinement.
What supports this approach?
Justyna Zandberg-Malec discusses editing Polish legal texts and agreeing interventions with their author. Her paper concerns editorial practice; it is not evidence of StudentSupport’s effectiveness. The sentence pairs above are original illustrations, separate from those in her article.
Columbia Law School Writing Center materials offer perspectives on readability and final checking. They concern English and a US legal setting, so their grammar, Bluebook conventions and approach to legal analysis are not imported into a Polish thesis. PANS in Włocławek includes communication and style among its law thesis requirements. That document is an example from one university, not a rulebook for all law programmes in Poland.
References
Zandberg-Malec J. (2021). Prosty język w komunikacji prawniczej – okiem redaktora językowego. Poznańskie Studia Polonistyczne. Seria Językoznawcza, 28(1), 191-204. DOI: 10.14746/pspsj.2021.28.1.13.
Columbia Law School Writing Center (n.d.). Clear and Active Legal Writing. University handout, file version labelled 05.2022; accessed 6 November 2026.
Columbia Law School Writing Center (n.d.). Proofreading Checklist. University handout, file version labelled 05.2022; accessed 6 November 2026.
Państwowa Akademia Nauk Stosowanych we Włocławku, Department of Law (n.d.). Guidelines for writing a master’s thesis, addressed to Law students [Polish document], part I, point 8. University guidance; accessed 6 November 2026.
Questions about editing and preparing your material
Can I see the edits with Track Changes?
Yes, if the client requires it, corrections can be prepared in Track Changes mode in Word. This allows you to see which sections were changed, corrected, edited, or removed.
This is useful for proofreading, editing, revising footnotes and references, or addressing your supervisor's feedback.
What should I send for correcting footnotes to court rulings and legal commentaries?
Attach the text with footnotes, the list of sources, and the supervisor's or university's guidelines. For court rulings, I need details that allow me to locate them, such as the court, date, case number, and publication source. For legal commentaries, useful details include the author of the relevant commentary passage, the editor, the edition, and the article, page, or numbered point, depending on the publication. If anything is missing, send a link or a copy of the passage used, together with the source details.
How do I get a proofreading quote and delivery date?
Send your text, describe the changes you need and give your deadline. I will assess whether proofreading is enough or more extensive editing is needed, then discuss the price and what can be completed within your timeframe.
Do you help international students improve their Polish texts?
Yes. I help international students who write academic texts in Polish and need support with language, style and sentence structure. This can include correcting sentences, making the wording sound natural, organising paragraphs and adapting the style to academic writing.
This is particularly useful when your content is ready but the Polish wording needs refinement.
Improve the language while preserving your argument
If a chapter is ready and its sentences need refinement, send it for editing. If revisions have made the link between claims and sources unclear, attach the footnotes and source extracts used. If you have supervisor feedback, send the current file with comments. At StudentSupport, we will establish whether you need language editing, reference corrections or specific revisions. A larger writing assignment will be discussed only if you actually need it. We will agree on the price and delivery date before starting.
