Given the leaf of an unknown plant, my observations included the color, texture, shape and smell: green and waxy on the top and fuzzy pale green on the bottom with paler green and yellow tinted veins. There were also characteristic brown marks caused by damage, most likely by an organism given the unpredictable and un-uniform shape and of the damage. I noted the smell resembling a musk and dirt or dust scent, as though it was plucked from a dry and often tread path. The general shape of the leaves was diamond and the edges of the leaves were scalloped with soft hairs on the edges. The stem was red and this red color extended into the veins of the leafs growing from the stem. All the leaves grew from the same point of the stem, with three leaves, one large center leaf and one smaller leaf on each side of the center leaf.
Comments
explicit vs. vague
I liked how you were specific in the way you described the stem, making it seem like the origin/focal point. One thing I would maybe change is instead of explicitly listing out the things you were going to write about (color, texture, etc.), you could list the leaf's characteristics in a way that tells a story. Yet at the same time, scientific writing may prefer being more straight forward.
The sentences were a bit run
The sentences were a bit run on towards the middle and following into the end. I would vary the sentence lengths and structures. Overall, awesome details and really enjoyed reading it.
I think you may need to keep
I think you may need to keep a consistent pattern between whether you are using passive or active voice. It feels disjointed when most of the sentences are passive but once in a while, there is an active voice. It almost feels as though you are changing the style of the writing mid-paragraph