Note for ES2C5 students: The document following below contains comments regarding typical

(formal) inaccuracies/mistakes etc that I encountered over a number of years in reports for
various modules. I supplied this document to the markers of the ES2C5 Wind-Tunnel lab report
as a guidance in an attempt to unify/synchronize their marking as much as possible. I am
uploading this on the Moodle site for ES2C5 after a student asked, during the lab de-briefing
lecture, whether it was possible to publish if to students.

Comments on your submission: (Ticked/Completed fields apply to your report. Numbers in

report refer to comments identified by the numbers here in marking sheet in left column.)
MAIN TEXT / REPORT
Overall report reads: ( ) Very professional, ( ) Good, ( ) Average, ( ) Not too professional
( ) MOST, ( ) SOME, ( ) Few of the key issues addressed. ( ) But not as indepth as in reports with top marks.
I found report difficult to mark. While most issues have been addressed I found report/essay difficult to read and
focus on
Overall report looks: ( ) Very professional, ( ) Good ( ) Average, ( ) Not too professional, sloppy
Layout not very good (overall)
( ) Abstract/Summary missing , ( ) Conclusion Missing
Use more subsections to structure better.
Space wasted throughout report.
Assume that you are a professional engineer/scientist writing an article for a journal or a report for another
professional engineer. Do not write as a student trying to satisfy a teacher!
Report exceeds set page limit ( ) Substantially, ( ) Quite a bit ( ) Probably a bit
You have to learn to stay within specified page limit. If a journal/magazine wants a five page article and you provide
them with a twenty page draft they will just tell you to revise without even looking at the manuscript. Maybe I should
start doing this with the essays!?
There are no references cited in this report.
There are no figures in this report! Include some figures to make whole report more appealing and readable.
Use more figures.
(1) This sounds more like an Introduction rather than Abstract/Summary
(2) This sounds more like Abstract/Summary rather than Introduction
(3) The Introduction should provide some general background on the lab and/or issues discussed. Reader needs to
understand why all of this has been done and where/how it is important in a general context. Also include some
references to back ground reading (books and journal papers) where reader can read up on all things relevant.
(4) This is not really an Introduction ( ) Introduction missing ( )
(5) The Introduction just repeats what you said in Abstract/Summary
(6) Technical issue(s) not explained very well/clear/precise.
(7) Applies throughout report (If the same error/issue of this type appears multiple times in report I usually only flag
it up once; usually where I notice it first)
(8) Similar comments as on previous page(s)
(9) Poor style of referencing. See comments in References section
(10) I don’t think that a reader who is not already familiar with what you want to say has any chance to understand
what you are trying to explain here.
(11) You implicitly assume that reader is familiar with this/all issue(s) already
(12) I cannot understand what you are trying to say here.
(13) This does not fit into this section.
(14) Better include this in main body of document rather than in an Appendix.
(15) Better include this in Appendix rather than in main body of document
(16) Better use flowing text rather than bullet points.
(17) Too many words used in this sentence without really saying anything that conveys any information.
(18) Style of writing needs to be more ‘economic’; i.e. learn to express things in fewer words. Delete all unnecessary
words and/or phrases to compress text.
(19) Too brief
(20) Often style of writing is too vague! For instance, a sentence like: “Many people investigated lots of different
problems and discovered spectacular things.” is of no use to reader. Constructions like this are a useless
agglomeration of words that can be deleted, since you are not saying anything. However, you have examples of
this type of sentences in your report.
Specify using sentences like:
 “Smith (1996) conducted a study into snail racing and his observations revealed that the average speed of a snail
is u=0.001 +/- 0.0001 m/s. However, Miller et al. (1998) subsequently conducted an experimental study on
South Australian speed snails and measured average speeds up to u=3.0 +/- 0.12 m/s. Since South Australian
speed snails have 16 little legs, invisible to the human eye, this species was subsequently excluded from
participating in snail racing by the International Snail Racing Society (Lee, Harvey & Oswald 2001).”
(21) Guide reader better.
(22) Explain to reader what all of this is about.
(23) It is not explained what this is.
(24) This sentence/phrase does not sound professional
(25) This sounds funny
(26) Repetition
(27) Reader wonders: “Why?”
(28) Reader wonders: “What is this?”
(29) Reader wonders “How?”
(30) Misleading
(31) Wrong
(32) Grammar
(33) This should be described in flowing text
(34) Too trivial to state
(35) This needs a supporting sketch to help illustrate things
(36) You cannot afford using up this much of space in a report that is limited to pages
(37) Appears sloppy
(38) Layout not very good
(39) Introduce new subsection with sub headline
(40) Section headline missing ( ) Throughout
(41) Section number missing ( ) Throughout
(42) Avoid use of 1st person in scientific texts! Phrases such as: “I have chosen a chicken …” can always be replaced
by a phrase such as, for instance: ”A chicken was chosen …”
(43) Space wasted at this point
(44) Too much ‘white/blank’ space on page
(45) This can be compressed
(46) I prefer it if you do not follow rigid question-answer structure for the questions outlined in briefing sheet. Better
is to incorporate answers to questions in a flowing text to make the report read professional.
(47) Table number missing
(48) Caption for Table missing
EQUATIONS
(49) Symbol not defined
(50) Units missing, bad style
(51) Symbol used before it is defined later in report
(52) Each quantity only has to be defined once
(53) In professional report (all) displayed equations are usually numbered such that one can refer to them in text.
(54) Don’t just ‘sprinkle’ equations randomly across pages. Connect them with words to generate flowing text.
(55) Don’t repeat the same equation multiple times in a report.
(56) To many details given in mathematical section. You only need to put in those steps that are crucial for a reader to
know in order to reproduce the rest of any calculations. Refer reader to relevant books or papers for details. Or
move some details into Appendices if there is no page limit.
FIGURES / PHOTOS
(57) Some figures/photos/sketches to help illustrate issues would be nice
(58) It is probably preferable to include figures in might body of text.
(59) Figure number missing ( ) Throughout report
(60) Figure caption missing ( ) Throughout report
(61) While your figures are numbered you do not refer to them in main body of text. Reader will wonder why
figure/photo/sketch is there. Use phrase like: “Figure 2 shows…” or “A comparison of Fig. 3 and Fig. 6
illustrates….” Or : “One can infer from Fig. 3 that cats have square eyes.
(62) Label and or units on axis missing
(63) Why include some low quality figures/sketches from www sites if much better pictures/photos are available in
(undergraduate) books / journals
(64) Figures / Photos from other sources are not referenced properly
(65) Indicate in figure caption the source where figure is taken from, e.g.: Fig.5: Photograph showing a Ferrari (from
Ref. 9) or Fig.5: Photograph showing a Ferrari (Miller 2006)
(66) Figures in Appendices also need to acknowledge sources.
(67) Cite references as close to original source as possible. E.g. for photos reference are supposed to point to who
actually produced the photo/diagram. For instance, if a photo that was originally taken by Hugh Hefner, say,
appeared in Playboy magazine but was later used by Walt Disney in a book about Hannah Montana then Hefner,
as the original source, has to be cited in the figure caption in Disney’s book. If the original source of photo is
unknown then you can state this in the figure caption using something like: “Fig. 5: Example of an elephant with
seven ears. (from Smith 2003, original source unkown).
(68) Whoever maintains the website you are referring to does not have the copyright to the figure/photo.
(69) If your artistic abilities are limited then I suggest that, rather than attempting to draw own sketches, use
appropriate pictures/photos/sketches from books/journals to make report look more professional.
(70) Figure excessively big. This looks like you are trying to waste space. ( ) Throughout
(71) Figure too small. ( ) Throughout
CITATIONS / REFERENCING
(72) This statement needs a supporting reference.
(73) Reference to this article/paper should have better come a bit earlier ( ) Maybe at start of paragraph
(74) Poor referencing style.
(75) This paper/book referred to hear in main body of text does not appear in your References section at end of report
(76) Initials and/or First name of author is usually not included here.
(77) References to some refereed (checked for accuracy) books and/or journal articles would be nice and not only
references from www sites. WIKIPEDIA is not a credible source for information!
(78) Probably better to refer to a textbook (rather than lecture notes) such that reader outside of Warwick can read up
on this
(79) Why use references to possibly dubious www sites if the same information can be found in most text books.
(80) Indicate in main text where particular references were used. “It is well known5 that America has a president.”, or
“It is well known5 that America has a president.[5]”, or “It is well known (Bush 2008) that America has a
president.”
(81) Cite by number as in: “It is well known5 that America has a president.”, or “It is well known5 that America has a
president.[5]”, or cite by Author, Year as in: “It is well known (Obama 2008) that America has a president.” But
do not mix the two styles.
(82) Citations should follow one standard format used by engineering/scientific journal/books.
(83) Missing is: (a) Author , (b) Year of Publication , (c) Title of Article (or Book), (d) Name of Journal,
(e) Page Numbers, (f) Volume Number, (g) Publisher, (h) www Address, (j) Place (town/country) of publication
(84) Do not include complete details of source in the main body of the text. All details are summarized in a separate
section at the end of the report.
(85) Do not include complete title of the article/paper here in main body of text
(86) The details you provide for references are not sufficient for reader to find/retrieve them if required. One does not
include References at the end of an essay just for the sake of it or to fill space. It may be very difficult to grasp,
but the idea of including references is to enable the reader and go to the library, or wherever, and access the
document referred to and read up on details. What you do in your report is, in principle, similar to me telling you
in an email that: “I deposited the feedback sheet with comments on your essay in the tropical rain forest. Good
luck finding it!”
(87) Do not include the complete details of a reference multiple times. Use something like:
Ref. [5,p.3]….. Ref.[5, pp.20-30], ….Ref.[20, p.987] Or similarly Miller (2004, p.3) ….etc
(88) Avoid direct references; do not use: Miller writes: “Cows are blue and donkeys are white.” In technical reports it
is better to paraphrase and/or use for instance: Miller (2006) states that cows are blue and that donkeys are white.
Alternatively use: “According to Miller (2006) cows are blue and donkeys are white.” or “According to Ref. [5]
cows are blue and donkeys are white.”
(89) Complete details of references do not need to be in figure caption. Move details to dedicated ‘References’ section
at end of report.
(90) I do not accept references to obscure (personal) web sites as credible references.
(91) Note, even referring to www sites of academics at other well-known universities is dubious. Anyone can put
anything on their www sites to fool poor Warwick students and trick them into obtaining bad marks for their
reports.
(92) Better not refer to internal Warwick www sites that cannot be accessed by anyone outside Warwick. Such
references are useless to an readers outside of U. of Warwick
(93) FURTHER REMARKS NOT COVERED BY ANY OF THE PRECEDING COMMENTS
In: H:/ES3D6/Design_Project/Marking_Sheet