# data[].attributes.body
What makes great Scientific Writing?

vbalfour
8d
What makes great Scientific Writing?
4 comments

vbalfour 14h
1) PROVIDE ONE PIECE OF FEEDBACK REGARDING SOMETHING THE AUTHORS DID WELL OR THAT THEY COULD IMPROVE ON TO STRENGTHEN THEIR SCIENTIFIC WRITING AND THEIR CONCEPT OVERVIEW. (Example: They provided a strong opening sentence, clearly outlining the problem.)

vbalfour 14h
2) PROVIDE A SUPPORTING QUOTE OR ANNOTATION DIRECTLY FROM THE TEXT TO SUPPORT YOUR FEEDBACK. (Example: "In 2015, California went through an extreme drought costing them millions.")

vbalfour 14h
3) INCLUDE YOUR NAME SO I CAN GIVE YOU CREATE FOR YOU CONTRIBUTION.

Geneva Hein 5m
Geneva


Add comment

# data[].attributes.body
#3
1)They took their time and few errors in grammar. It was easy to understand and told us everything we needed to know.
2) A good evidence piece is "Every year, nearly 1 billion gallons of water falls from the sky, uncaptured and unused." they then explain about how that it is based off of a desert beetles shell that has grooves in it that hold water and the water runs down to its mouth.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Even with a limit with 300 words, you should be able to put more detail into how the actual devise relates to a pinecone. Just saying "oh cause pinecone" does not mean that your audience will understand anything that is happening. What parts of the pinecones? Why pinecones? many details are missing to a very inportant part of this process.
2."The EvapoPalm can be retrofitted on to existing transit stops, and through mechanisms inspired by pinecones..."

# data[].attributes.body
-It has a really good structure/flow which makes it more professional and easier to understand while reading
-There were a few minor grammar errors that if fixed could improve the credibility of it

# data[].attributes.body
In the beginning, the writer started with an example, this hooked me into the rest of the article. then they provided evidence with numbers, but only once throughout the paragraph. Moving through the paragraph, then they provided a solution to the problem, but at the end they didn't sum it all up and say how to distribute and put it into the world

# data[].attributes.body
1)
one strength was the intro. They started with the issue presented in a way that grabs you and makes you care about it.
2)
one weakness was that it felt more like a story than a proposal, they were conveying a narrative over an idea. the solution felt like a side note to the issue.
ex) "in turn, those would lead to starvation, dehydration, and death." this demonstrates how well they got they issue across but it also demonstrates how much weight they put on the narrative.

# data[].attributes.body
1) explain how it is inspired by nature
"the prototype that we will be using is inspired by the darkling beetle of the deserts"
2) address the problem
"A lack of water would lead to crops failing,a lack of ice for preservation and problems with the drinkable water supply."

# data[].attributes.body
1) They give a idea on what is happening to someone/something. They also could of given some detail on the rain barrel like dimensions and how it can be used on a larger scale.
2) "Humanity is running out of water"

# data[].attributes.body
I think that they should have written in third person, and made sure their sentence structure was cohesive, as well as used scientific Language. Something they did well was their use of a hook, and getting straight to the problem and solution and then provided facts and evidence

2) "If we could more efficiently capture that rainwater and mist that floats down from the sky."

3)Genevis

# data[].attributes.body
Strength: I thought the writers did a good job at addressing the problem and laying out all the materials needed in order to reach their manifested solution.

Weakness:  I believe that they could have added another solid piece of evidence because they only had 1 instead on 3.

Example:  The only solid piece of evidence/ data stated was ".. California alone will lose 78,800 acres of land to drought."

Proposed solution: Maybe they could incorporate two more pieces of evidence. Such as the coat on seed nutrients. Or potentially, something more about Lilly pollen grain and how they were going to incorporate it into their project.

# data[].attributes.headline
Strengths and Weaknesses of the EvapoPalm

# data[].attributes.subject
Strengths and Weaknesses of the EvapoPalm

# data[].attributes.body
One strength that I've found is that they at least explained the problem at hand, which was intense heat in urban areas. I feel like that this is important to explain what problem you're having, in the EvapoPalm prompt, however it didn't explain it, which makes a jump and a segue to the weaknesses of the writing.
One con is that while they told us the many different creatures they used in the construction, they didn't explain what they have to do with it, like 'What does the Thorny Devil Lizard has anything to do with this?' or 'what does a pine cone...' etc., etc. Another con is that the prompt is also less than 100 words, which this prompt that i'm currently writing is more than 100 by now, or maybe even 300. While this is a minor issue, there is a grammar error or two within the writing, and I don't know why it bothers me, but they said that Melbourne is a state somehow? (The actual state that Melbourne is in by the way is Victoria, Australia, not to be confused with Melbourne, FL)

# data[].attributes.body
With the writing I reviewed (2), I think that the author spent a bit too much time talking about the specifics of the problem. They briefly discussed their solution at the end, but not much. I personally had a hard time understanding the solution they were thinking of. They also had really rough transitions between sentences, such as “[California] will lose 78,800 acres of land to drought. After a seed germinates, it needs a consistent…” Before this sentence, seeds weren’t mentioned once. Suddenly, we’re talking about how them like it was in the last sentence. I feel like if they read it out loud or had someone else read it, it could have been a much better sounding piece.

# data[].attributes.body
Provided relevant statistics to support their argument "nearly one billion gallons of water fall from the sky, uncaptured and unused"

# data[].attributes.body
1) the writer had a good starting sentence.
2) "The EvapoPalm is both a proactive and retroactive solution to the urban heat island effect, plaguing cities across the globe."

# data[].attributes.body
1) The author explains what their innovation does and the what biomimicry was applied to it
2) "The EvapoPalm can be retrofitted on to existing transit stops, and through mechanisms inspired by pinecones, the Australian fan palm, and the thorny devil lizard, cools the surrounding area while also collecting solar energy to be put back into the grid."

# data[].attributes.body
I received writing #2. If I could improve the writing I would definitely add more details about why they were inspired by pine cones, the Australian fan pal and the thorny devil lizard. The writers only told us that they were inspired by those things but never gave us a reason why they were inspired.

# data[].attributes.body
1) Lily Pollen seed Coats overview talked about what they were going to do in the first sentence which gave the reader a good idea of what they were going to do.
2) They could have added more evidence and go back through a proof read what they wrote.

# data[].attributes.body
1.) They didn't spell anything wrong, But it was very vague I barely know what it does. So I think that they should have gone more in depth. it was only 107 words long.
2.) "improves the overall user experience of public transport."

3 it kinda sucks.

# data[].attributes.body
The person who wrote this had a good idea and it seemed to be well thought out. The only problem is they didnt give enough information. They should add more because they have a huge topic with a lot of information. They are getting there but need more. "in Australia, where intense heat has now become the states number one natural killer". Yep thats it.

# data[].attributes.body
1)

# data[].attributes.body
1) They had a few grammatical errors that made their writing hard to understand. 2) For example, they said, "as the soil dries out more quickly during a drought, when seeds are watered they germinated the sprout can die before the plant is watered next." which just isn't comprehensible.

# data[].attributes.body
1. The author did a good job actually introducing the topic while providing a detail. They did a great job explaining how it would affect the ecosystem and economy. One thing that could have improved on was actually getting to what their solution to the problem would be and going into more detail about their project They seemed to only focus on the problem and not the solution. The beginning of the paragraph seemed to be repetitive also.

2. "These droughts not only affect crops but livestock as well... This natural occurrence becomes a natural disaster in the agricultural business.

# data[].attributes.body
One thing I really liked about this design concept overview was how the writers made you really care about the issue at hand. The language they used was really impact, and made me interested in their solution. An example of this kind of writing can be found in the following sentence: "Every year we lower the shores and lakes, taken to hydrate our farms and provide easy access to water anywhere in our buildings."