--bav9)PEER REVIEW -Bobby Voeks
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 should be high school level reading/knowledge, most likely business owners and home owners. This page was a little above that. Maybe include a diagram of how the solar cells work, and define some of the terms.
2. Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout? It was very easy to navigate and find important information.
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 heading were logical, practical, and in a sensible 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 were clear and relevant.
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, I didn’t feel any persuasion one way or another about the project.
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 pictures and figures are straight forward and easy to understand. None of them are labeled, nor do they have captions. It would be interesting to see a graph of estimated time to save the money invested in the project. This might be a lot of work though.
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 figures were in the right place, but not really referenced. Maybe include a figure w/ in text description, or caption. They do need citations if they were taken from somewhere else.
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”? I would like to know how long it would take for the panels to pay for themselves, with repairs taken into account. Where did the figures come from?
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 a reasonable number of related links that are helpful.
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 page was pretty long, but there are a lot of necessary descriptions that cannot be taken out. I feel it should be a little long given the subject matter.
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? It has the banner and correct categories.
13. List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
I felt the page was very well done and informative. A lot of research was done and there isn’t really any missing information. The text and layout is close to final quality.
14. List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
The diagrams were kind of just thrown in there with not much explanation, nor where they cited. There were some long sentences that could be broken up. Maybe include some definitions in the text, or links to other pages with definitions. The whole page is close to final quality, but needs a little tinkering here and there.
15. Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors)
Nice job, I learned a lot.--bav9)
Holly Leopardi's Peer Review[edit source]
Holly.leopardi Name of Editor: Holly Leopardi Contact Information: hfl2@humboldt.edu Names of Writers: Daniel Johnson and Daylene Mihahara
Writing Issue Comment here and discussion tab 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. Students and those with an interest in PV operating systems, but have only an elementary knowledge how the process works and the installation/construction process. 2. Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout? 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 headings were clear and got more specific to the HEIF PV project itself. While I was reading it I was a little confused why the Construction/Installation section was not after the Location. The Component section would be a very good conclusion section and if it were moved the chronological arrangement of the headings would be better suited. 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 Purpose topic sentence has strange wording, “reduce the environmental impact of energy consumption at HSU,” and could be improved. Also the Component section does not have a topic sentence, it just starts out with the specifics. All other topic sentences are very strong and clear and preview the paragraph very effectively. 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 objective except for in a few places in the Location, Components and Installation sections, in which adverbs and adjectives could be eliminated. 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? 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 figures are only indirectly referred to in the text for both of the figures. There is no text along with these pictures of citations, however I know you had a problem with that as stated in your memo. The first picture could be slightly smaller and the text on the second figure is very hard to read. 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”? I would like to know if this project paid itself off, or an estimation on that based on the amount of energy being generated and used in replacement of PG&E. 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? References are well summarized, the one external link is difficult to navigate and I had to read until the next section to understand why the link was relevant to the project, maybe it could be moved to the component 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? It is a good length, one thing I would really be interested in seeing is the analysis of the data so far, how much energy is being produced, how much money is this saving the school, what are the actual CO2 reductions, etc. 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.) This webpage clearly presents a great deal about what a PV system is and the process of installing one. The information is very well supported and overall very effective in presentation. Both diagrams support the information contained in the webpage, and each heading is broken down into specific parts and processes which aid the reader in understanding the subject.
14. List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) Perhaps a section could discuss more of the student interaction with the project and what is expected with student interaction throughout the life of the project. Also an analysis section of any actual data would be very helpful in illustrating how effective the PV panels actually are, not just how effective they are estimated to be. See comments about about header placement and wording issues. The web page contained a few spelling mistakes and some of the technical language could be reworded to be more clear in the first paragraph.
15. Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors) I enjoyed reading your page very much, it helped me to understand more specifically how a PV system works and what exactly the solar panels are doing on top of the music building. Holly.leopardi
David Colvin's Peer Edit[edit source]
Name of Editor: David Colvin Contact Information: dcolvin@humboldt.edu Names of Writer: Daniel Johnson, Daylene Miyahara
Writing Issue Comment here and discussion tab 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. People interested in PV systems.
2.Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout? The whole page reads like a story or history. I would rather see history/back ground and factors/description. Separate information according to if it relates to all PV systems or is specific to HSU. If I wanted to read about PV, I don't necessarily care about HEIF, student interns, music rehearsals. Its good to include, but separating it allows people to choose what information they want to look at.
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. I would recommend more headings, breaking up the long paragraphs into shorter ones.
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. Paragraphs can be a bit long, so information is broad within paragraph. Suggest shortening paragraphs or splitting paragraphs to make information relevant to 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) Page is objective. But would suggest putting history of project as a one part, facts or descriptions about the pv system as another part.
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? Needs captions (as mentioned in memo) refer to pictures in paragraphs.
7.�� 8.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. Figures are just there, no references, no captions, no descriptions.
9.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.
10.Are there any questions you have about the topic that are not addressed? Are the sources of the information clearly presented under “References”? Good use of references.
11.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? Don't need link to Humboldt State (my opinion) Should have links to other PV systems, perhaps even removing whole PV overview section if a good link can be found about general PV stuff.
12.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 all the information is there except how well the system functions (mentioned in memo), but I would recommend breaking it up more.
13.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 it does.
14.List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) Has a lot of information, covers what needs to be covered.
15.List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) Separate history from technical information. Add figure #s, captions, and refer to them in paragraphs to explain what they are. Shorten or separate paragraphs to make all information relevant with in the paragraph.
16.Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors) Good job, page is well written.
Chris Coutinho's Peer Review[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 think the target audience for this page is any combination of students and professionals interested in knowing more about the solar photovoltaic system on top of the Music building. There’s more information than I thought was than required, and the page would have felt more efficient if you cut down, summarized and downsized the information.
2. Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout? I think the page conveys the information very linearly and exposes each aspect of the project in full detail. I’m not aware of the actual project and it might have been much more complicated than what was put on the page; however, I want to suggest taking advantage of the fact that you’re using the internet as a medium for information by linking other pages throughout your site. For example, I think the section at the beginning of the page about photovoltaic cells is unnecessary, and it would be better to just begin about the project while inserting links about solar panels that go to other parts of Appropedia.
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 headings that you have give the page a good structure, and it follows a pretty logical order. I suggest adding more sub-levels, therefore giving the page more depth. For example, I think the page is structuralized upside down, and I recommend you adding sub-sections within the construction section, and making that a bigger portion of the page than it is now. Secondly, in the ‘Funding’ section, I would recommend you organize the payment information in either a graph, or a table that would express it more efficiently
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, all the topic sentences match with each heading and it feels like all paragraphs match up and I can’t suggest any improvements.
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 used on this page I thought was very descriptive and well thought out, but the language choice was good and didn’t give the page a biased feel.
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? These next few ideas came to me as I was looking at your page for the first time, and they would have helped me understand the information more quickly. First, I think the first picture should be smaller. You mentioned in your memo that you had a problem getting the caption to show up underneath the pictures. You can solve both problems by putting in “|thumb” in the code of the picture to make it into a thumbnail. It reduces the size of the picture seen on the site, while still allowing you to click on the thumbnail to view the picture at full scale in a new tab/window. The ending code for the first image would look like “[Image:Solar.jpg|thumb|right|’Figure 1’ PV System on Music Building]”. I just put Figure 1 into the code to include what question 7 is asking for. Additionally, the apostrophes will make the text bold to differentiate it from the caption. The two last images kept me guessing during the first look through of the site and I have just a couple ideas that would make them easier to comprehend. The second image has a lot of negative space, which could be cropped out with any basic image formatting program, before you insert it into Appropedia. Finally, I had some trouble understanding the last image because it had no obvious title and it didn’t fit in my web browser. That means that most other people won’t be able to either, and that will take away from the effectiveness of your pictures. Options include making it into a thumbnail and/or resizing the image with another program before putting it on Appropedia.
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. If you decide to create pictures into thumbnails, you can then just put ‘Figure #’ into the caption and it’ll give you something to reference to in the writing.
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 an RCEA page, but the authors did include a section on the “bottom line” and describes the end result relative to the project
9. Are there any questions you have about the topic that are not addressed? Are the sources of the information clearly presented under “References”? This page has probably the farthest thing from too little information. I have no questions, and only recommend that you condense your page to more efficiently express the project
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 enough external links, but I think there is much more you can do with internal links. As I said in answering question two, you should take advantage of the fact that there are more pages on Appropedia, and incorporate the work that other people have already done.
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 didn’t know it had to be close to 2 or 3 pages until I read this question. If indeed it needs to be that long, then I agree with what you have done so far, but I think that condensing the page to more effectively list the information will greatly improve the site
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, it has the ‘work in progress’ banner and the correct categories labeled.
13. List the strengths of document: The page definitely has enough information, and I think that puts you ahead because I think it’s easier to edit than it is to write.
14. List areas for improvement: Like I said previously, the page could be condensed to improve effectiveness, and there are parts where the pictures could be edited to fit the page.
15. Overall comments: Great project page, I can tell you worked a while on this page and I hope my comments have you some help in improving your page. If my comments didn’t make sense feel free to email me at cc162@humboldt.edu