Hints[edit source]
Nice work so far on your page. Use * to make a bulleted list, such as:
- list item 1
- list item 2
- etc.
See Help:Contents for more.
Good luck, --Lonny 00:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Ya maybe dont use some many bullets anyways?
--Curran 00:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)--
Curran Hamiltons Peer Review[edit source]
--Curran 20:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
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.
The target audience for this type of writng would be someone somewhat versed in technical language, so engineers or scientists. I think that the language is appropriate for that audience but I think that there should be a summary at the top for less knowledgeable users.
2. Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout?
The page does have a table of contents which helps a lot but I would perhaps remove the “Cogen produces and Fuel used” sections. They just clutter the page and they are visible in a small history. I would also remove the “ other cogen unit on campus” section. And perhaps add an unnamed summary section above the table of contents
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 are not correct. They are level one headings and they are different sizes. This needs to be corrected.
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.
They are not really in paragraphs. They are mostly in bullet points. That should change. I was never good at finding topic sentences and it is hard for me to see them here.
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)
There is too much mention of we, us, and I. There is also a small scattering of adjectives and adverbs, example: in the end of the history section.
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?
They are not all clearly explained. They aren’t thumbnails so they don’t have a direct explanation. Any explanation can be found in the paragraph but sometimes it doesn’t explain the picture just the concept.
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 pictures are not referred to and there are no figure numbers. Only one of the pictures is mentioned with a source. There are no capitions. These should be made into thumbs instead of pasted in the text.
9. Are there any questions you have about the topic that are not addressed? Are the sources of the information clearly presented under “References”?
The references are not clearly placed in the text except in one and a half incidents. There is a references section
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 no related sites listed except the references and there are few of those.
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?
Good 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?
It has both the banner and the 115 category. It is not and RCEA page.
13. List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
It has lots of relevant info. It was well researched. It has a good basic structure.
14. List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
If you start to look closely you see a few holes in there design and there is a fair amount of grammatical mistakes. It needs some work.
15. Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors)
It has a very good base of info and it is generally very good. It does have several mistakes and some things that need to be fixed.
--Curran 20:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Cameron Smith'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.
The target audience seems to be college aged students or high school students interested in science. The writing is for the right audience.
2. Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout?
Information is fine to navigate. However, I would suggest putting “other information” at the end or creating a “specifics” section.
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 are used successfully, like stated earlier the “other information” headline could be more specific and moved. Level two headings. I think it would be best to not use ‘our’ or terms as such in headlines or ever in a technical document.
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.
Only one of the paragraphs has a topic sentence and it does not clearly state the subject matter. Topic sentence needs to clearly define the heading for every subject to improve the webpage’s quality.
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 very objective; it goes so far as to call the technology amazing and say that it is not implemented enough. The purpose of the information is to let people decide for themselves without giving them a sales pitch.
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 liked the figures a lot and found they were very helpful. They need to be labeled properly and possibly thumb nailed.
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.
I didn’t see any references in the writing. Sources are cited for one picture but not the other. The figures have no captions, try thumbnails.
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.
It is not for the 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”?
They do have reference table and it seems to be lacking enough sources. Try to gather information from more places to make for a fuller web page.
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 no links to other sites save for the references. Try placing links throughout the webpage to help readers understand in more detail individual components of the system.
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 seems to be of good length though I feel with more sources it can be bulked up with good information!
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’s not an RCEA but it has the 115 category and in progress banner.
13. List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
The general structure of the page is good. Most of the information is good. The pictures are helpful and the chart is a nice addition visually.
14. List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
Get rid of all of the objectivity it is unprofessional and ruins the credibility of the page. In the individual paragraphs there are some problems structurally and grammatically that you should be able to clean up before submitting the final draft.
15. Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors)
Pretty good stuff overall. There is a lot of room for improvement but it has a strong base and can easily be a good webpage with some editing.
cts21 @5:30PM Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Daniel Johnson's Peer Review[edit source]
dkj9 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.
The document is directed towards anyone interested in cogeneration, especially cogeneration at HSU. I feel this paper is directed towards an audience most likely to visit their page.
2. Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout?
The information on the webpage is easy to navigate; the use of topics and subtopics organizes the information into an easy-to-read article.
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. From the information provided, it appears enough headings were implemented to organize effectively, although you may want to change the heading “other information” to a title less vague.
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.
There are not many topic sentences incorporated, the sections are titled but the information is not prefaced by a topic sentence. All of the sections could use a topic sentence, for example some sections are only bullet-points of information. You could add a topic sentence then proceed to a bulleted list of information.
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 webpage is primarily objective, the majority of information provided is from documented sources, although the last sentence of “Another co-gen system here on campus?” is your speculated opinion and should be omitted.
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 diagrams in the webpage are very detailed and easy to interpret. It may make them easier to read if they were full-size images rather than thumbnails.
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 second figure uses figure numbers and is cited, although the first figure does not. Both figures could use descriptive caption rather than a caption stating the source of the image.
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”?
The source links are all functional and under a “References” heading. Maybe you can address how the system was funded.
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 sufficient number of links in the webpage, and they vary from technical websites to news articles.
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 material seems to have enough information incorporated, maybe just add information about how the project was initially funded
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 page has the banner as well as the ENGR 115 category.
13. List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
Cleary organized, easy to understand, an array of links, very descriptive diagrams.
14. List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
There are some spelling errors within the webpage, you may want to enlarge the images from Thumbnails to full size images, and provide information on funding.
15. Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors) The webpage provides a good deal of relevant information, and is organized in an effective Manner.
I believe only minor corrections are needed for this page.