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. Anyone looking for information on retrofits and their effectiveness.
2. Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout? Information is presented nicely.
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 appropriately.
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. Clear topic sentences and relevant following sentences.
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 not objective.
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 three pictures should have headings on them.
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 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. You do show savings of money and KWh but CO2 offset is not shown.
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 questions, references are clearly presented.
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? The author does provide links to relevant sites.
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 looks unfinished and is a little short.
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 there along with the categories.
13. List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
The page is laid out nicely.
14. List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) I suggest a graph cumulating the KWh used and then have an arrow showing when the retrofit was completed.
15. Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors) good start
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 audience is anyone interested in the RCEA or the HSU Engineering program. It is appropriate it just needs to be expanded. 2. Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout? The info is easy to navigate with good use of headings. I can find what I want in the sense the headings break it down well but each heading needs more info. You may want to add more places to navigate through and add more sections. 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. Like stated in the earlier question good use of headings the info under each heading just needs to be expanded. I like the order of the headings. 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 topics are clear but too abrupt in some cases especially the last three headings. Those topics are not even fully formed paragraphs. Again more is needed as I understand you know that. 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 seems fairly objective but it just needs a lot of clarification such as the project is associated with HSU, more info about the business, etc. 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 image you have is good for general info about CAF and I like all the other images that help add to your purpose. 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. Try adding captions to your pictures and state the relevance. Overall, the way you used the pictures is effective towards shedding some light on the reader. 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. Yes, the only thing I would do is add the finishing buffer touches and make the data more easily readable. Yet, aside from that the information seems to be self-explanatory. 9. Are there any questions you have about the topic that are not addressed? Are the sources of the information clearly presented under “References”? Yes the references are useful and help instruct the reader where to head further for more information. 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? Make sure all references are relevant. I suggest adding more important ones and deleting the ones that stray from material. 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 to short each topic(heading) needs more info. See answers above for some things that need to be addressed. 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 does have work in progress banner and the correct categories at the end of page
13. List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) I like the base of what you have going on just need more. Your headings flow pretty good order
14. List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) It seems to be coming along very well. Make sure to add more information to buffer your statements and findings. If you do change your references make sure they are better than the current ones.
15. Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors) Great start so far!
CONTACT INFO: jjp40@humboldt.edu Jeff Palumbo
Joshua Rodriguez[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 of this page is more towards possible customers of the store, rather than the concentration of the green impact itself. Nice background information about the store, but don’t make it seem like you’re selling us something.
2.Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout? The given information is easy to follow, along with the necessary info. that they presented. The layout of the page might need to be a little arranged with the pictures that you provided for us.
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, which gives the reader an idea of what you are about to say to us. Though I felt that there weren’t enough headings for the subject. The headings were in logical order, giving us the background and descending order of info.
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. For the Data paragraph of your page, there was no topic sentence that introduced us to the following points given. The other two paragraphs both had a clear topic sentence along with the following sentences that related to the topic. For the Data section of the page give us a topic sentence to introduce the readers to your 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) For the most part of the page, it’s objective. Except for the fact that you quoted the store manger Marty, indirectly giving a bias of the florescent lights for a energy efficient and brighter lights installed.
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 each photograph gives us an understanding to the store’s merchandise, but can you show us pictures of some evidence of where the proceeds go to, like some pamphlets, or informational papers of this support.
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 doesn’t refer to the figure using figure numbers as well as texts describing them. The pictures don’t have a source cited and no captions. I suggest that the writer give us some texts of the picture describe what we’re looking at.
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. The writers have not presented a prediction of money and carbon dioxide emissions saved comparison chart, instead they gave us how many kilowatt hours were used in a year.
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 sources are clearly stated under the “References” section of the 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? The author does provide a link to one related site, which is relevant to the site, there’s just not enough of it. The document is technical enough for the audience to understand.
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 seems to be on the short side, I recommend that you address the purpose, benefits of the topic, habit changes after retrofits, motives for retrofit, and the effects of the retrofit.
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 “ENGR 115: In Progress” banner is not displayed, but the categories of ENGR 115 and RCEA is at the end of the page.
13.List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) • The images provided • The background information on the place
14.List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
• Captions of images
• More information on your topic
• Elaborate more on the background of the subject if you can
• Link some sources from your information
15.Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors) For the data, provide what year that data is in as well as some links where you got it from.
Sean Matteson[edit source]
Name of Editor: Sean Matteson Contact Information: sdm53@humboldt.edu Names of Writers: Sabre Ethridge, David Wittmers
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 didn’t feel there was any target audience in the page. I felt the page did not give a clear presentation to someone interested in the RCEA retrofits. More information about the retrofits and the overall savings could have been more clearly presented.
2. Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout? The information was a little unclear with the money saved right next to the kilowatts saved graph. The page left many unanswered questions and the questions that were answered were combined together in paragraphs rather than separate headings which would have made it easier to navigate. Also more links are needed in 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. Headings were vague and sparse. The document needs more headings with clearer titles.
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 were no topic sentences and the information under the provided titles did not stay on topic.
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 somewhat objective however there was too much of a conversational tone rather than technical writing i.e. presenting the facts.
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 photos I felt were not directed enough to what the establishment does which is a animal foundation not a thrift store. Even though that is how they get their funding I would have liked to see more pictures of the operations of the business. Also the graph title is not descriptive enough. Kw hours by year for what? Another graph with money saved and co2 emissions would also be nice to see to understand benefits.
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. None of the photos have number references. All but two of the photos have captions. And some are redundant. More variety of photos would make it easier to get a feel for what the business does in addition to the text explaining it
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. The bottom line as far a savings and co2 emissions were done poorly. More structure to the data and just more information are needed. If a table was made for the money saved rather than listing it that would help in comprehension.
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 presented well and clear. Why is there a spike in the kilowatt hours in your graph at the end? And when were the retrofits installed?
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 think you have combined the links and references in one. Those need to be separate. Links are to related sites and references are sources of information. The relevance is clear however.
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 is very short. I think better organization to your information will help. Also I would suggest looking at the questions on moodle and make sure all of them are addressed and presented clearly in your page.
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 does not have the banner but does have the categories.
13. List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) Did a good job of explain the business and what it does.
14. List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) More technical writing along with better organization and, appropriate headings. Also I would like to see the technical data presented about what the retrofits were. Where? And When were they done and why?
15. Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors) Overall it is a good start but it needs work.