The long journey....

Good PhDs
Robust Methodology
Clear aim, objectives, hypothesis, research Q?
Good data collection and analysis methods
Comprehensive literature review
Critical Analysis
Well presented
Interesting findings
Strong Validation
Good reflections
Good use of appendices
Good performance at viva
Confidence
Other researchers will use as a reference
Work already published
Original findings
Appropriate structure of chapters (flow)
Writing style (exciting)
Evidence based
Well scoped (focus)
Intellectuality and creativity are evident
Strong theoretical underpinnings
Researching a phenomena
Refereed journal papers as references
Contribution to knowledge clearly described


Weak PhDs
Weak methodology
Ambiguity in defining the aim, objectives, etc
Weak data collection and analysis methods
Superficial literature review
Superficial analysis
Badly presented (spelling)
Findings are not clearly reported
No validation
No reflections
Bad use of appendices
Bad Performance at viva
Arrogance and ignorance
Other researchers will not use as a reference
No publications before viva
Expected findings
No structure (flow)
No excitement in the writing style
Opinion based (unsupported statements)
No scope, all over the place
No intellectuality or creativity
Weak theoretical underpinnings
Reporting on a piece of software
Conference papers and reports
Contribution to knowledge is not sufficiently addressed