Well I took out the actual report because I've changed the real one a lot from this one, and it's nearly due anyways I think I've got enough responces, and thank you to all who suggested how to make it better. I'm not good at reports cuz math owns english/science.

That is pretty good. I spotted the odd error here and there but it was very well written.
I learned a lot from it!
Good job, keep it up. A+!

To sum it up, DNA is composed mainly of 5 parts. 4 parts are pairs. Thymine and Adenine pair together, and Guanine and Cytosine pair together. The other part is the sugar phosphate backbone, which is what the pairs connect to on the outside.



Image from WikiPedia. Most of the weird sounding sentences are due to trying to make it longer

Also, to make it more complicated, Guanine-Cytosine have a triple H-bond, and Thymine-Adenine have a double H-bond

Hmm, I already have a headache (more like a migrane now, lol) and I though reading this would make it worse. Nah, it didn't though. Interesting report on Crick. I know you said that you kept writing out what DNA stands for but it started to get on my nerves, lol. Anyways, I saw now mispelling expcept I think one word, it was work and I beleived it should have been worked, I saw no grammer problems or anything. If there are any that I didn't see, hopefully your teacher won't count off points for things like that. You put the sources that you found your information, that's good. I'd say a well writen report and should deserve an A in my opinion because I saw nothing wrong. Also, I actually knew something in there, lol, I knew who Mendel was and what he did. Anyways, good job there, hopefully your teacher will also agree with me on giving you an A.

I somehow managed to take all but the first DNA thing out and still touch the 3rd page

Crick is noob.

Watson is pwn.

Good report though

To be honest...
I didn't understand half the words in that report.

To be completely honest with you, that is a pretty poorly written paper. There is almost no structure to it whatsoever. I saw no hooker, thesis statement, topic sentences, or citations in your paper.

It looks like you just typed a mass of text and threw paragraphs into it. All you did was type a chronological run-down on Crick's life. This is shows poor planning and structure to your paper, and is pretty boring to read. What you should do instead is have your first paragraph give the reader a brief overview of what you are going to talk about in your paper. Then I would divide the paper into paragraphs discussing his early years, achievements, and effects of his work. One good thing I saw was your conclusion paragraph. It was well written and had a good cliff hanger.

You might also want to consider revising your grammar in some of your sentences. You use waaay too many parenthesis, and you only need to spell out DNA once.

Instead of saying "He was born to parents that did not have much wealth. The lack of wealth is due to both of his parents working as shoemakers in Northampton. Francis Crick received his early education in Northampton, England (where he was born), and London," you might want to revise it to "Born into a lower class family of shoemakers, Francis Crick revieved his early education in the cities of Northampton and London."

I'm not trying to be mean, but when school is on the line, you gotta be tough.

Hookers But really, I categorized it by preset categories...the teacher had 5 of them (In no order, although they are when he gave them to us- Intro, Applications to Biology, Methods Used to Achieve Goals, Motivating Factors, and Conclusion). To be honest, I'm worried mostly about giving the information before how I give it. I have to go back and do a rough draft though so I might change a few sentences that sound funky and try to add in some attention-grabbing stuff every so often. Oh, I un-spelled out all but 1 of the DNA's, just haven't changed it here.

i would consider it a poor report for a freshmen in highschool (?)

remove all parenthesis unless its a citation for a source

your report needs to flow better, but it doesnt need a thesis statement or supporting paragraphs since its not a thesis paper.

I'm not sure about the teachers at your school, but the ones at mine lower our grade if they see wikipedia on the bibliography. They concider it an unreliable source

I agree with Arrowslayer. It's definitely not an A+ paper. There are a lot grammatical issues in it.

It seems to be solid facts clumped together with no free flowing sentences, you should try to expand upon the facts and join them in an interesting way, instead of laying fact upon fact upon the reader, which gets dull after the first few paragraphs.

Your teachers got haxed by anti-wikipedia bots o.O Although I don't mind, I do find it interesting how all the comments on the bottom half are negative I'm working on it right now, even though I don't edit the 1st post...I'm trying to use all the comments that everyone said was wrong.