- More could be added to the introduction section as well as a hypothesis that clearly states what the experiment should predict.
- The discussion section touched on the results briefly but more could be added in terms of comparing the results to other articles. A little more emphasis on explaining the hypothesis is needed as well.
- The discussion section was very short, and only discussed the findings from the results section. It did not discuss the hypothesis. THe articles were not discussed in the discussion. They were found in the conclusion
- More could be added to the conclusion to make it complete but it does cover the basics of the experiment and why it was conducted.
- In citing references in the paper, use a comma after the author, then enter the year of the citation. All references should be on a separate page.
- The research examples were not found until the conclusion, and I beleive that the use of these articles was not correct. There is no need to list the reference citations for each article in the body of the paper. I would encourage the author to try to integrate the research into their paper as if they are writing a story about the research findings instead of simply stating the article and writing a quick summary.
- I was a little confused about what “conjunction present” or “conjunction absent” meant in this section. It could have been explained so that the use of these terms made more sence.
- The clarity of the paper could be improved on by elaborating more on the topics the paper focuses on.
- The explanation of the peer-reviewed articles were a bit confusing and should be in the discussion not the conclusion
-
The authors in the reference page should be in alphabetical order.The conclusion is better but roughly includes research examples instead of summarizing the paper.
