- "Figures" 1, 2, and 3 are tables, not figures
- Standard Errors (in addition to Standard Deviations) should be given, as we are interested in a comparison of means
- Units should be SI, not American/English customary (however, engineers never seem to understand this)
- The Abstract is a disaster (don't get me started)
- The Equipment and Methods sections (essentially analogous to a "Materials and Methods" section of a standard format scientific paper) should be expanded with greater detail
- Figures (and Tables) are presented but not cited in the text
- Figures are inconsistent as to orientation (strength is scaled horizontally in Figs. 4 - 7 and vertically in Fig. 8)
- Fig. 7 is redundant, it simply repeats means presented in Figs. 4 - 6
- All of the figures present means, yet none have error bars (SD or SE)
- Differences in knot breaking strength, as it relates to material strength, are discussed (albeit briefly) without any tests of statistical significance
- And (one of my pet peeves), the word "data" is the plural of "datum". Therefore, "the data was" is grammatically somewhat akin to saying, "the cows was," (and sounds like fingernails on a chalkboard to Yours Truly)
And I thought I was a stickler for presentation :P
- Figure 8 is presented as if the different knots have some ordinal relationship, which they do not.
Okay, you have a point with this one. That's really grating.
As to the small sample size; it's actually probably OK for such a study. There variation about the means here appear small enough that increasing the replication would probably not change the over-all results enough to worry about.
Then maybe it was okay that they didn't include error bars
Anyway if that sort of thing is like fingernails on chalkboards, try this one on for size: My battery's have a "capacity" of 170 amp's.