The research question is situated within a specific and well-developed scientific context supported by multiple literature references.

A full equipment list, clear diagrams and step-by-step procedure enable reproducibility with minimal ambiguity.

Controlled variables are identified and justified, demonstrating solid methodological planning.

The rationale for using uniform sand instead of natural dust lacks discussion of how particle composition differences affect generalizability.

The procedure omits the specified number of repeated trials per thickness, reducing clarity on data robustness.

Minor reproducibility details—such as multimeter calibration dates and scale bars on diagrams—are not provided.

Data tables are clearly presented with units, headings and significant figures, and graphs include labeled axes, trend-line equations and R² values.

The formulae for power calculations and uncertainty propagation are correctly stated and applied to parts of the data.

Overall data processing is accurate and the interpretation of R² demonstrates solid analytical understanding.

Propagated uncertainties are not reported in the final tables or included as error bars on graphs.

Uncertainty in thickness is only briefly mentioned and not integrated into regression analysis.

Minor labeling and formatting inconsistencies (missing units on axes, HTML superscripts) reduce precision.