The document remains essentially desсrіptive (i.e. it includes only some tables and pie-charts…). For example, the new point 2.2. on ″Regions in France and the types of wines they produce″… (Alsace, Bordeaux, Burgundy, Champagne, Loire valley). Why did you included only this regions ? why not Provence, Languedoc, Cognac, Armagnac, Beaujolais…? And, why do you think the contents included in the desсrіption is essential ? Any wine student know where are those regions located, the type of grape varietals produced in those regions, etc. Everyone knows that Champagne is only produced in one region, not in Burgundy… OR…. What relevant insights do you expect to add in the thesis from general/vague sentences like the following one ?. ″The purity and unique taste of real champagnes are due to the fertile soils and climatic conditions that surround the champagne region. The area has many growers who cultivate on family vineyards which are very large, the growers then sell their grapes to champagne houses while some retain the grapes to make their own Champaign. There are many communities within the Champaign region like the Cote de bar which produces white grapes to make the sparkling white wines. The region also has many hotels and restaurants strategically located for tourists who come to the wineries. Additionally, the people are hospitable thus attracting more tourists to the place.″… The above statement adds no value to a master thesis. Therefore, this paragraph and other similar sentences should not be included in a master thesis. Thesis can have some desсrіptive parts but it should be mainly explanatory. Please note it seems unlikely that we can validate a Master thesis only with a few tables, pie-charts, and percentages. You need to analyse the data using appropriate statistical methods (multivariate data analysis, tests, etc). Therefore, you need to narrow the research question and to proceed with an appropriate methodology design and analysis. You mentioned in the document ″The researcher applied both the quantitative and quantitative/experimental methods of data collection…″. I do not think you did this. You need to use an appropriate software to undertake a multivariate data analysis and/or tests. Please find hereafter again my comments shared with the Jury members last December (and again communicated to you this early March). Only some of these points were partly addressed in the document you sent to me last Friday: – The contents of you document is mainly desсrіptive. A thesis can have some desсrіptive parts but it should be mainly explanatory; – There are a lot of vague sentences, repetitions, normative, and general statements/comments. E.g. on page 35 “The questionnaire revealed a lot of things”. This has absolutely no value at all. – There is no scientific literature review on management focused on your problem statement. For example, what did the main authors wrote and found about the key success factors in the wine tourism ?. All those factors must be identified, put into context, and criticized; – References are not standardized and do not comply with the requirements; – The explanation of the methodology is vague and it includes misleading information. Where in the thesis did you conduct your quantitative and experimental analysis ?. I do not think you did this!. – You should suppress all the sections related to research philosophy, epistemology, ontology, and research approach (sections 3.2. to 3.5). It adds absolutely no value to your thesis and those sections are disconnected with the contents of the thesis. – The methods for data collection and instruments of research need to be precised and closely linked with what you really did in the thesis; – Further, where in the thesis did you conducted a reliability and validity tests ?. There is no information about this. What tests ? where are those tests ? – You mentioned you used SPSS. There is absolutely no multivariate data analysis. Only desсrіptive data is presented. You need to use factor analysis, principal component analysis or other statistical methods; – You use likert questions in the questionnaire. You need to calculate the Cronbach’s Alpha to test the internal reliability of the items in the scale; – The use of the KMO (Keyser-Meyer-Olkin) test seems also to be necessary: measure of sampling adequacy; – The discussion is vague and needs to be entirely rewritten; – The graphs are not well presented, remain incomplete, and include mistakes; – The discussion is vague and purely desсrіptive. The discussion should be linked with the problem statement and with the findings in the literature review. Saying that “France has various regions to produce wine…” or “France is a connection for different people who travel to Europe” are vague statements and it explains absolutely nothing. You need to rewrite entirely the findings after doing the literature and the appropriate multivariate data analysis. – At the end, a proper conclusion should be written.