When you're showing the notation, you use an asterisk (not an astric) instead of an apostrophe to denote the inverse of a move. This is unconventional, but not exactly wrong, I guess.
On page 2, paragraph two, you spell "Rubik's" "rubics". This is incorrect in spelling and in punctuation. Rubik is a name and therefore should be capitalized. The "s" is a possessive "s" and therefore has an apostrophe, as it is Erno Rubik's cube.
ZZ and Petrus both have 493 (472 ZBLL + 21 "PLL") algorithms; CFOP only has 78 (57 OLL + 21 PLL) algorithms.
ZZ and Petrus can also just have 29 (9 OLL (actually OCLL) + 21 PLL) algorithms.
Okay, I'm not going to pick apart all of the grammar mistakes that you made, as there are a lot of them. Run it through a spell checker, don't use ellipses, and double check your capitalization (CFOP vs cfop).
I would also suggest that you increase the spacing. It looks and feels pretty cramped. Diagrams are usually a good thing to include, but you might want to consider cutting back a bit and cleaning them up. They're kinda very MS paint looking, and that's not good. If it's all you can manage, try spacing them out a little bit and using them only when necessary.
It's also pretty long, and there is definitely a lot of material that you can cut out. People know what clockwise is, cut out the five right-hand-rule finger-curling sentences. Get a good proofread and cut at least 30% of everything here. I don't know if you intended to write it in a conversational tone, but even if you did, I would suggest toning it back a bit.
There are a lot of fragmented and dangling sentences. If you can't get Grammarly or have access to your english teacher, slowly read it out loud, and that might able to help.
I'm all for teaching people how to solve with roux, but I don't think your execution was great.