This is a very imaginative and intriguing poem. You show good descriptive powers and you are able to empathise well. The langauge is quite evocative and sophisticated at times. Also you do well to sustain a poem of such a length. Some minor points below but otherwise very good.

Notes:

1. cold as ice [a bit cliched]

2. I an feel it condensing [can]

This is quite well written, though I am not clear about who is the intended recipient! It is obviously not a UCAS PS, since there is a reference to KS3. I therefore assume it is designed to be a statement of your achievements, qualities and aspirations as you currently see them.

To this end I have made a large number of changes, not only in the wording, but also in the order, so that it all reads more logically, with common themes now grouped together. I have added a critical final sentence too, as well as removing all the more negative observations, and one or two rather trivial ones. It is overall a little shorter after all this.

I hope you like the amended version.

Not bad, but two problems. Your preliminary experiment is virtually useless. For a start (as you say) the wind speed may well 'overwhelm' the effect of temperature, but also you can't really call it an experiment on the effect of temperature when you don't actually measure the temperature! 'Hot' and 'cold' is hardly scientific!!!!

You don't really explain why you are using two different plants and on what basis you are going to compare them. What are you looking at? Surface area of leaves?

This is fine in general - clear, accurate and well written. The only criticism is the preliminary experiment, which is more like a trial run. In your experiment, you have decised to use a range which you have not tested! It would have been better if you had tested 10 cm up to 200cm and then selected a range from the results obtained.

Wow! This is quite a story. It is highly original, very sophisticated and very well put together. There’s great psychological depth and exploration in this and the way you bring in the different perspectives is very innovative. Well written overall but check for minor errors such as those below and typos throughout. Quite an achievement!


Notes:

1. Shamita, head of the department of Modern History at Oxford University in the 24th century[,]
2. back manuscripts [scripts]
3. heterosexuality was still considered unusual [do you mean homosexuality?]

4. Shamita turns on the overhead projector and slips a portion of manuscript onto it. [you are switching to the present tense here – be consistent – easier to use the past tense when telling a story]

5. since she is descried as sensible and reliable. [decribed]