Topic is communicated clearly with comprehensive background and effective use of diagrams.
Methodology is described in step-by-step detail, facilitating replication.
Technical terms are employed accurately and explanations of stomatal function under stress are well framed.
Research question bundles multiple independent variables, diluting focus.
Justification for choice of specific treatment levels and statistical methods is brief and sometimes incomplete.
Control variables omit environmental humidity and light intensity measurements.
Consistent and accurate use of subject-specific terminology (e.g., guard cells, osmotic stress).
Relevant application of a variety of sources, including primary literature and textbooks.
Accurate LaTeX presentation of chemical and statistical formulas demonstrates precise calculation.
Some key claims rely on conjecture rather than critically appraised evidence.
Referencing format is inconsistent and internet sources are not evaluated for reliability.
Application of source material occasionally remains descriptive rather than fully analytical.
Quantitative data are handled with depth—means, standard deviations and non-parametric tests are applied.
Results are effectively visualized and linked to physiological mechanisms.
Limitations are acknowledged and improvements proposed, showing sound evaluative skills.
Argument is coherent with a logical narrative linking hypothesis, data, and conclusions.
Statistical reasoning contains errors (misinterpretation of p-values, lack of assumption checks).
Some evaluative comments remain descriptive, with overstatements of certainty.
Rationale for test selection and sampling sufficiency is not fully justified.
Argument is periodically diluted by the broad scope and occasional speculative assertions.
Structure follows EE conventions with clear headings, numbered figures, and integrated tables.
Layout is consistent with correct application of formatting conventions (fonts, captions, page numbers).
Occasional use of first-person narrative reduces formality.
Minor inconsistencies in heading labels and bilingual slips (Spanish/English) slightly detract.
Duplicate heading labels and uneven pagination appear in places.
