Many components of the figure were like the original, but there were numerous differences. These differences highlighted details that were missing from the methods section or not written clearly enough. One oversight at the root of a number of the differences was the lack of units of measurement. Each component of the original figure was described with the dimensions in terms of the width and height, but none of them contained the type of unit being used. This resulted in the smaller font in the component label boxes. Had I designated that the entire figure utilized millimeters as the unit of measurement, then the three label boxes would have had a font size that resembled the original more closely. Furthermore, the length and thickness of the red line over the quarter would have also been more like the original. More clearly stating that the line was meant to encompass the diameter of the quarter would have also increased similarity. The objects in the background were more difficult to control because of the weather during the week the replicate was created. Thus, the moisture seen in the replicate was not necessarily due to the instruction of the methods because the weather and time were clearly stated. But, the images showing the location did not include the bike rack structure due to it not being mentioned in the methods that it was in the figure. I only stated the location from where the photograph was taken, not the details of the scenery.
Comments
Initial sentence
The first sentence "Many components of the figure were like the original, but there were numerous differences." may be to vague for the reader and could be omitted without changing the message of the rest of the paragraph.
This paragraph is very well
This paragraph is very well written but it could be more concise. Written well for academics though.
Specify
Rather than saying things like "numerous" and "many" it may be better to use exact numbers.