Feedback to colleague´s text

At the beginning of the article, the author of analysis introduces the main topic of the whole
article. The article investigates connections between haematological neoplasms and immunity
disorders which is serious and difficult topic. I definitely appreciate this brief introduction.
The author writes, that article is directed to his audience of students, scientists and other
experts in the field of medical sciences. It means that the language of article is very formal with
lexical terms and that the only experts clearly understand it. The author of analysis claims that
language uses passive form and is short sentence-based. According to author of analysis, article is
written with cohesion and coherence and only complex and objective information is included. I think
that this information about the text is well described. Although prof. Hasselbalch is expert in his
fields, he uses language of caution. This language of caution includes words such as „may“ (uses 45
times) and other similar words. Organisation of information in text is clear and well planned. All
these author´s statements mentioned above prove that the author of analysis is able to identify all
important aspects of academic writing. At the end of analysis, information about the number of
references are includes, too. If I should summarize the whole analysis, I think that the analysis
of article could be a little bit longer, but all important aspects are covered sufficiently. I
appreciate that the analysis is well arranged and divided into paragraphs. If I compared this
analysis of text with another analysis which I should evaluate, I would admit, that this analysis
is longer and better in all aspects of academic writing.