Elizabeth Gutierrez's Comments[edit source]
Elizabethg1990 1.Who do you feel is the target audience for the writing in this document? Suggest a change if you think the writing is not appropriate for this audience. I believe that the target audience for this document is people interested in gravity fed drip irrigation and/or HSU’s CCAT. I think that the authors need to define the terms they use throughout the document. It is clear they have researched this situation substantially but they need to tell the reader about it in terms that any reader can understand and if they need to use terms that the reader might not know they need to explain what those terms mean.
2.Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout? Yes, the authors presented their information in a format that is very easy to navigate through. I can easily find information. I cannot think of any improvements.
3.Are headings used successfully? Are enough headings used? If so, are they specific enough? Are the headings in logical order? If not, would the document be easier to follow with more headings? Level two headings? If so, suggest some headings. Yes, I believe the headings are used very well, although the bullet headings in the “Proposed System Improvements” section would be better if bold. The headings seem to be specific enough and in logical order.
4.Is there a clear topic sentence for each paragraph? Do all following sentences relate to that topic sentence? How could topic sentences of the paragraphs be improved? Suggest improvements for specific paragraphs. Yes, the authors did a good job in writing clear topic sentences that alert the reader in what will be coming in the following paragraph and then did a good job in making sure that the rest of the paragraph followed the topic sentence.
5.Is the writing objective? Remember this is a technical communication. Make suggestions to avoid bias or opinion in sentences. (For example: eliminate adjectives/adverbs: very, many, large, etc) The writing is object for the most part but beware of few exceptions such as: “The current system was implemented with the best intensions.” Try to find a way of expressing this idea with more objective speech.
6.Is each figure or photograph easy to understand? How could the figures be improved? Can you suggest another figure presents the information in a clearer manner? The figures are very helpful in understanding the material but more could be used when talking about certain aspects of the system that readers might not be familiar with such as the lateral water lines.
7.Does the writer refer to the figure(s) in the text using figure numbers? Is each figure well described in the text and are the sources cited? Do the figures have captions? Make suggestions to better incorporate figures. The author does not refer to the figures and the figures are not labeled or numbered. It would be greatly beneficial if the author could mention the figures while explaining the items in the figures.
8.If this is a RCEA page have the writers clearly presented the bottom line (predicted money and carbon dioxide emissions saved versus actual money and carbon dioxide emissions saved) in a table or graphical format? Suggest improvements to make this comparison easier for the reader to understand.
9.Are there any questions you have about the topic that are not addressed? Are the sources of the information clearly presented under “References”? What sites did the authors use to get “internet research”?
10.Does the author provide links to related sites? Are there enough or too many? Are they technical enough or too technical for the audience of the document? Is the relevance of each site clear? Is there a summary of references? There could be more, such as the sites used for their “internet research”.
11.Is the document too long or short? (It should be between 2-3 pages). If it is too long, what should be taken out? If it is too short what remains to be addressed? I think the length is perfect.
12.Does the page have the “ENGR 115: In Progress” banner? Does the page have the correct categories (ENGR 115 and RCEA if applicable) at the end of page? Yes to both.
13.List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
Very good amount of information.
14.List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) Too technical and not enough explaination of terms.
15.Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors) I really hope this helps, I didn't mean to bash on your work, I just meant to be helpful. Your page looks amazing, I'm sure you will get a wonderful grade. Keep up the good work and good luck! =] Elizabethg1990
Chet Jamgochian's Comments[edit source]
1. Who do you feel is the target audience for the writing in this document? Suggest a change if you think the writing is not appropriate for this audience. I feel that the target audience would be the people at CCAT and anyone interested in CCAT
2. Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout? The information is fairly easy to navigate. However the site seems “bulky.” I’m not sure the wikitables work that well in this situation. Maybe try it in paragraph form. Try some level two headings too.
3. Are headings used successfully? Are enough headings used? If so, are they specific enough? Are the headings in logical order? If not, would the document be easier to follow with more headings? Level two headings? If so, suggest some headings. The level one headings are all used well. They are in logical order. I think that the page would be easier to follow if there were more level two and maybe level three headings. E.g. for the proposed improvements try having each improvement under its own heading.
4. Is there a clear topic sentence for each paragraph? Do all following sentences relate to that topic sentence? How could topic sentences of the paragraphs be improved? Suggest improvements for specific paragraphs. The site is not in paragraph form. However each section does have a topic sentence.
5. Is the writing objective? Remember this is a technical communication. Make suggestions to avoid bias or opinion in sentences. (For example: eliminate adjectives/adverbs: very, many, large, etc) Yes the site is objective. It seems to be technical and straightforward.
6. Is each figure or photograph easy to understand? How could the figures be improved? Can you suggest another figure presents the information in a clearer manner? Yes the photos are all clearly labeled.
7. Does the writer refer to the figure(s) in the text using figure numbers? Is each figure well described in the text and are the sources cited? Do the figures have captions? Make suggestions to better incorporate figures. They aren’t referred to in the text but the pictures are fairly self-explanatory. You might try referring to the pictures in your text as well. The captions all are good. There are huge gaps around some of the pictures. Either make the pictures bigger or try placing them among the text.
8. If this is a RCEA page have the writers clearly presented the bottom line (predicted money and carbon dioxide emissions saved versus actual money and carbon dioxide emissions saved) in a table or graphical format? Suggest improvements to make this comparison easier for the reader to understand. Not RCEA
9. Are there any questions you have about the topic that are not addressed? Are the sources of the information clearly presented under “References”? No it looks good.
10. Does the author provide links to related sites? Are there enough or too many? Are they technical enough or too technical for the audience of the document? Is the relevance of each site clear? Is there a summary of references? Yes there are links. For the appropedia links try using the double brackets [[RCEA]] The CCAT Rainwater Catchment System link doesn’t work. The links are all relevant. You don’t need to but you might try adding a couple more links. Maybe a link to the apporpedia CCAT page in the Purpose Statement section.
11. Is the document too long or short? (It should be between 2-3 pages). If it is too long, what should be taken out? If it is too short what remains to be addressed? The length is fine. The only thing that needs to be changed are the large gaps of empty space.
12. Does the page have the “ENGR 115: In Progress” banner? Does the page have the correct categories (ENGR 115 and RCEA if applicable) at the end of page? Yes
13. List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) There is a lot of information presented. I like that you list out what needs to be fixed and why. Also the table of costs for the proposed changes adds to the page.
14. List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) The layout of the page is not that visually pleasing. There is a lot of empty space. I strongly suggest that you change from wikitable style to paragraph style with headings and subheadings. There are a few typos. Appropedia doesn’t have that great of a spell checker. Try copying the page into a word document and spell checking it there to find errors.
15. Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors) The page is good. There is a lot of good information and it is presented well.
Heather Baker's Comments[edit source]
1. Who do you feel is the target audience for the writing in this document? Suggest a change if you think the writing is not appropriate for this audience.
I feel the target audience is anyone interested in reading about the gravity-fed drip irrigation system at CCAT or anyone looking online to construct a system of their own.
2. Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout?
I find the information very easy to navigate and to follow along with. If I was creating a system of my own, then I would follow this page. The necessary information can easily be found. I would not improve the layout much, because I think the creators did a good job.
3. Are headings used successfully? Are enough headings used? If so, are they specific enough? Are the headings in logical order? If not, would the document be easier to follow with more headings? Level two headings? If so, suggest some headings.
All headings are used successfully. They are all the same height and in the same font and are all bold. I think there are enough headings used, as all pertinent areas have a proper heading. I think the headings are specific. They are to the point and sum up what the following information below them are about.
4. Is there a clear topic sentence for each paragraph? Do all following sentences relate to that topic sentence? How could topic sentences of the paragraphs be improved? Suggest improvements for specific paragraphs.
Under system highlights, I would remove the sentence: “The current system was implemented with the best intensions.” The sentence that follows is a much better sounding sentence and is straight to the point. The one above is not necessary. Other than this all topic sentences exist and all following sentences relate to the topic sentence.
5. Is the writing objective? Remember this is a technical communication. Make suggestions to avoid bias or opinion in sentences. (For example: eliminate adjectives/adverbs: very, many, large, etc)
Aside from the previously stated sentence, all writing seems to be objective. The previous sentence could be debated, as it is somewhat opinionated and contains an adjective (“best”.)
6. Is each figure or photograph easy to understand? How could the figures be improved? Can you suggest another figure presents the information in a clearer manner?
The figures and photographs are very helpful and well-done. Adding more pictures could help brighten up the page. The coiled line photo is good with its slash and circle to show this is not feasible. That was very clever. The cost associated with improvements is helpful and gives a thorough overview of what needs to be purchased for improvement efforts. I am unable to suggest any more figures.
7. Does the writer refer to the figure(s) in the text using figure numbers? Is each figure well described in the text and are the sources cited? Do the figures have captions? Make suggestions to better incorporate figures.
The writers do not refer to figure numbers in the text because each area of text has its own pertinent photos. All figures have captions. I am a little confused as to what the one reference is referring to exactly, is it going to the hose stake photo? If so, the photo itself is titled hose stake whereas the reference is titled garden stake. I am assuming all other photos were taken by the writers and am not sure how those would be cited or if they even have to be cited.
8. If this is a RCEA page have the writers clearly presented the bottom line (predicted money and carbon dioxide emissions saved versus actual money and carbon dioxide emissions saved) in a table or graphical format? Suggest improvements to make this comparison easier for the reader to understand.
This is not a RCEA page. Not applicable.
9. Are there any questions you have about the topic that are not addressed? Are the sources of the information clearly presented under “References”?
Is there work being done to fix this non-functioning system? There are not many references, only one reference currently. A lot of information on this page seems like it might have been from personal visits to the site and so I am unsure how this is referenced.
10. Does the author provide links to related sites? Are there enough or too many? Are they technical enough or too technical for the audience of the document? Is the relevance of each site clear? Is there a summary of references?
There are links to related sites. The link to the other gravity-fed irrigation system webpage on Appropedia was a smart idea. There maybe could be some more site links, if you found areas to add more, but I think there are enough links. The links are technical enough for most people reading this webpage to understand and follow. The relevance is clear. There is a summary of references, but again, only one reference.
11. Is the document too long or short? (It should be between 2-3 pages). If it is too long, what should be taken out? If it is too short what remains to be addressed?
The document meets requirements in terms of length.
12. Does the page have the “ENGR 115: In Progress” banner? Does the page have the correct categories (ENGR 115 and RCEA if applicable) at the end of page?
The progress banner is on the top of the page as needed. The correct categories to the ENGR 115 class and to CCAT are appropriately at the bottom of the page as required.
13. List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
The webpage is clear, easy to follow along with and conveys what is going on with the gravity-fed drip irrigation system. Everything is layed out nicely and if I was doing a research project on the system, everything I would need to know is there on the webpage. The pictures are helpful and I like the recommendations given to make the system function once again and what these costs would be to make those improvements.
14. List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
The references need to be improved (if there are citations needed for pictures the writers took themselves). I noticed some spelling errors.
15. Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors)
I really like your page. I think if I were to come across your webpage via a search engine, I would find it very useful whether I was doing a research project or constructing a system myself.
Annie Bartholomew's Comments[edit source]
1. Who do you feel is the target audience for the writing in this document? Suggest a change if you think the writing is not appropriate for this audience. I feel anyone interested in gravity fed drip irrigation is the target audience ranging from recreational gardeners to students of appropriate technology. Excellent language.
2. Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout? Very easy to navigate. Everything was there and easy to read. I was not a fan of the “box” formatting, it is functional, just less aesthetically pleasing.
3. Are headings used successfully? Are enough headings used? If so, are they specific enough? Are the headings in logical order? If not, would the document be easier to follow with more headings? Level two headings? If so, suggest some headings. Perfect number of headings, addresses all concerns of reader in the correct order.
4. Is there a clear topic sentence for each paragraph? Do all following sentences relate to that topic sentence? How could topic sentences of the paragraphs be improved? Suggest improvements for specific paragraphs. The topic sentences flow into the paragraphs. All the information is there, I don’t have much to criticize except for the specific sentences I noted in your page. Some sentences are too technical.
5. Is the writing objective? Remember this is a technical communication. Make suggestions to avoid bias or opinion in sentences. (For example: eliminate adjectives/adverbs: very, many, large, etc) The writing was objective. You may want to change language like “with the best of intentions” (System Highlights) and “all but abandoned” (Current Performance) because it’s less technical in nature.
6. Is each figure or photograph easy to understand? How could the figures be improved? Can you suggest another figure presents the information in a clearer manner? I would explain that a “hose stake” is a type of stability. Some of the pictures could have been made large including: “Existing System” and “Current Bucket Placement vs. Proposed Bucket Placement.”
7. Does the writer refer to the figure(s) in the text using figure numbers? Is each figure well described in the text and are the sources cited? Do the figures have captions? Make suggestions to better incorporate figures. The writer does not refer to figures using figure numbers. The captions were most informative, but more details could be added within the text and within the captions.
8. If this is a RCEA page have the writers clearly presented the bottom line (predicted money and carbon dioxide emissions saved versus actual money and carbon dioxide emissions saved) in a table or graphical format? Suggest improvements to make this comparison easier for the reader to understand. CCAT Page. All of the figures of cost are there in a nicely displayed table. It is very straight forward and easy for the reader to understand.
9. Are there any questions you have about the topic that are not addressed? Are the sources of the information clearly presented under “References”? I would like to see a “Future Improvements” section including if there is interest in fixing the system or creating a new one. What it would take to restore the old system beyond the technical side –a grant from HEIF?
10. Does the author provide links to related sites? Are there enough or too many? Are they technical enough or too technical for the audience of the document? Is the relevance of each site clear? Is there a summary of references? I saw two links to sites, the Rainwater CCAT Catchment System link did not work. I would like to see more links to sites including once that are not on Appropedia including sites about other methods of gravity drip irrigation.
11. Is the document too long or short? (It should be between 2-3 pages). If it is too long, what should be taken out? If it is too short what remains to be addressed? This document met all the expectations of length. I was pleasantly surprised at all the detail that it included.
12. Does the page have the “ENGR 115: In Progress” banner? Does the page have the correct categories (ENGR 115 and RCEA if applicable) at the end of page? Banner and correct categories present.
13. List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) Addresses all questions, uses appropriate language, and is a strong piece of technical writing. I believe it is the correct length for an assignment and topic of this nature.
14. List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) Minor spelling errors, sometimes language is too vague, other times too technical. The box organization makes it seem longer than it is, and it doesn’t need the extra space.
15. Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors) I felt like this group met the expectations of the first draft. They obviously put in time and effort creating a quality page with excellent photographs and calculations. With the exception of layout, I feel like this is a good example for the first draft of an Appropedia page.