Clear along with some previous understanding of try things out
Some critical info is neglected or tangential information is included
Info is misrepresented
Some effects are actually neglected
Incorrect style is employed
Relevant environment info is delivered in balanced, interesting form
Your own trial objectives and predictions are clear and seem a reasonable extension of found understanding
Composing is easy to read simple things
All history data is correctly referenced
Related foundation details are displayed but could reap the benefits of reorganization
The research are well-described and a probable theory has
With work, visitor can link their tests to understanding help and advice
Authorship try easy to understand
Foundation data is properly documented
Background data is as well general, way too particular, missing out on and/or misrepresented
Empirical question is improperly or perhaps not identified