Research question is precisely formulated, sharply focused and sustained throughout the report
Topic is communicated accurately and effectively, with comprehensive explanation of its biological significance and context
Methodology is appropriate, detailed and justified with clear evidence of effective selection
Minor misclassification of NaHCO₃ as an organic compound
Some procedural details (e.g. confounding variable monitoring) lack active verification methods
Alternative hypothesis ordering lacks quantitative rationale
Pre-experiment section did not include all wavelengths or justify omission
Terminology is accurate and consistently applied (e.g. photosynthetic photon flux density, photophosphorylation, Calvin cycle)
Source material is clearly relevant and effectively integrated to support rationale and interpretation
Literature is linked coherently to experimental findings (e.g. comparison with Yavari et al.)
Erroneous classification of sodium hydrogen carbonate as an organic compound
Some claims (e.g. white light intensity dilution) are asserted without quantitative support
Analysis is detailed and quantitative, with mean, standard deviation, ANOVA and Tukey HSD linked to photosynthetic mechanisms
Discussion interprets results in light of chlorophyll absorption spectra and proposes logical improvements
Argument is structured coherently, progressing from hypothesis through data to conclusion
Evaluation of non-significant comparisons (green vs yellow light) is cursory
Statistical discussion of p-values/F-values is brief and could be elaborated
Consistent font choice, clear sub-headings, inclusion of page numbers, title and word count
Tables and figures are present and generally legible
Multiple formatting errors: missing axis labels and units, duplicate and truncated table numbering
Inconsistent section numbering and misaligned text in tables
HTML artifacts and incomplete entries diminish clarity
