Savings issue[edit source]
Why don't the actual annual savings correspond to the actual monthly savings in the following table?
| RCEA's Projected Savings | Actual Savings | |
|---|---|---|
| Total Savings per Year | $1682.59 | $201.37 |
| Monthly Savings | $140.22 | $20.14 |
I.e. RCEA project year/12 = monthly... but not so for actual.
Thanks, --Lonny 18:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
User:ElisabethJ/Peer review comments[edit source]
Name of Editor: Elisabeth Johnson Contact Information: ej22@humboldt.edu Names of Writers: Charis Thompson and Brianne Rielly
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 that the target audience of the page is people who know a little about the Redwood Coast Energy Authority and the retrofits that they helped to implement for many local businesses and organizations. The writing is appropriate for these people.
2.Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout?
The layout was well organized.
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 only heading I feel needs inprovement is the Conclusion heading, which I feel could be more desciptive, maybe “ outcomes of the retrofits” or “Did the retrofits achieve the predicted outcomes?”.
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.
Topic sentences were good.
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)
Well written.
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 think that a picture of the building with it's sign or logo would be nice. I like the graph.
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.
There is no reference to the photos in the texts (no figure numbers). The captions describe the figures well. Maybe describe in the text body too.
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 graph is nice, the only improvement I would suggest is color if you know how to do that. I liked that you included the total price the payback time was calculated from.
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 of the information are cited however I am not sure if a specific citation format.
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 would suggest adding some links that provide the reader with some information on lightning ballasts and what T12 and T8 bulbs are. This would provide a little technical background for those who seek it.
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 would try to lengthen the page a little. Add some info on how many lights actually were replaced, how many hours per day the lights are used.
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 RCEA is displayed at the top but not at the bottom.
13.List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) I think that the page has a good layout over all. The placement of the lighting photos is nice, and will be great with the include citing in the text.
14.List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) I would definitely like to see a picture with a logo for the humane society, to make them identifieable to the public via imagery.
15.Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors)
User:ElisabethJ/Peer review comments
JuliaA Peer Review[edit source]
Name of Editor: Julia Allshouse Contact Information: jla65@humboldt.edu Names of Writers: Charis Thompson and Brianne Rielly
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.
Yes the writing is appropriate for this audience.
2.Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout?
Yes the webpage is easy to navigate with a different heading for each topic.
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 the headings are appropriate for the webpage but the order to me is a little off. My suggestion is to place them in more of a chronological order. "About the Organization" then "What influenced the Retrofit" then "What were the Retrofits" then "How did the Retrofits Influence the Behavior of the Client" and finally "Would the client have completed the retrofit without the RCEA."
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 paragraphs have a topic sentence that correlates with the rest of the paragraph.
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, there are a few places where you used 'big.'
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 picture are mostly clear, but the second photograph it a little hard to see the lighting especially when the pictures are so small, you could possibly make the photos a bit bigger.
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 feel like the text under the photographs is a bit long, maybe shorten it to, "Retrofitted lights in the kennel area" or "Upgraded lighting through out the shelter."
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 table and graph are easy to read and 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”?
No, everything seems covered.
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 four references, which seems to be enough and they are all relevant and add good insight to the page.
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 about three pages long and seems to addressed everything needed.
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 RCEA category is not at the bottom of the page.
13.List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) The page over all looks great and is easy to read.
14.List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) Kenel is spelled kennel and under "What were Retrofits" shelters should be shelter's.
User:JuliaA/Peer review
USER:WDB6 Peer Review[edit source]
Name of Editor: William Brown
Contact Information: wdb6@humboldt.edu
Names of Writers: Charis Thompson & Brianne Rielly
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 for this document will be future and potential clients of RCEA, and the general public whom may be interested in saving money by replacing their current incandescent lights with more efficient ones. I feel the writing is efficient for this audience, however I would explain the steps you took in calculating the energy savings so that a reader will know how to do the calculations themselves.
2. Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout?
The website is well laid out and easy to navigate.
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 feel the headings could be more formal, you could change the word client to the business name. Instead of About the Organization maybe About the Sequoia Humane Society.
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.
I feel that you are relying on the headings as your topic sentences. For example you could start the paragraph for what influenced the upgrade from The Redwood Coast Energy Authority (RCEA) approached the shelter… to; The Sequoia Humane Society was strongly influenced by RCEA in their decision to make the upgrades. This will allow for your paragraphs to have more form rather than just answering the question you pose in your heading.
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)
I feel that the writing is objective. However there are a few sentences that could be worded a little different to sound more technical. For example, “There would have been no way that the upgrades would have been feasable for the shelter…,” could be changed to, It would not have been feasible for the shelter… Also feasible is spelt incorrectly. Also you refer to the Sequoia Humane Society as a shelter throughout the document but do not explain this when you introduce the client at the beginning of the webpage.
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 two photos are easy to understand but the graph and chart aren’t very descriptive. The graph should include the year, and the values don’t make sense in the chart.
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 need to be numbered and referred to. In the “What were the retrofits” section you should describe how many bulbs were replaced and refer to the pictures so that the reader can visualize as they read. The text in the picture could also be more formal. Also you have no written description about the chart and graph. Explain the process used for building the chart and graph. How did you come up with these values.
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.
As I noted above the chart and graph need to be explained so that the reader can understand the significance of the information. Explain why the Kwh was so high in December. Are these values from this year or last 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”?
What is Lou Jacobson’s official title at RCEA?
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?
You don’t need a link to the RCEA page every time you use the term RCEA.
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 about the right 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?
You need to include the RCEA category at the bottom of your webpage
13. List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
The writing for the most part is very professional.
14. List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
There needs to be more detail an explanation in some parts. Also the photographs look a little dark is the new lighting bright enough, or is it just the photo.
15. Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors)
I am impressed with the document. Write the document in word and copy it into the webpage to help prevent minor spelling errors.
John Dustin Wiesner's Peer Evaluation[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 for the given project is anyone who is willing to learn about the RCEA’s retrofit done at Wayne Bare Trucking. (although I assume mostly it is for the RCEA). The project was supposed to be written for anyone without a “technical background” to be able to understand it, and I believe Charis and Brianne wrote their content successfully by that guideline.
2.Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout?
The information is easy to navigate, but improvements can still be made. I believe that If you had more headings to split your content up (i.e. using different level of headings) the content of the page would be easier to read as there would be clearer separations of content.
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 accurate and seemed to flow logically (although some people prefer not to use a question as a heading). The only recommendation I would make would be as stated above. Use a larger variety of headings to create a more separated and easy to read page.
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, there is a clear topic sentence for each paragraph. The content that follows is related to the content introduced in the topic sentence. (good incorporation of the quotation by the way).
5.Is the writing objective? Remember this is a technical communication. Make suggestions to avoid bias or opinion in sentences. (For example: eliminate
All the writing seemed to be completely objective without bias. It seemed professional and I couldn’t detect any personal opinion being submitted throughout the page.
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 have several captioned pictures in their page, but they aren’t referenced in the content. I would suggest adding a reference number in the caption (so you can incorporate it into the text), adding a picture in the background section so people know what the business looks like (plus, people like pictures. Usually the more there are, the more interesting the page is.), and providing a comparison graph so the before/after analysis is more clear.
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.
There are no figure numbers used and although you can tell that the pictures relate to the text, they are not directly mentioned. Also, the pictures are not cited. Refer to the above post.
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, there is all the necessary information for this part of the assignment. However, I would suggest to add another graph so the readers have a visual representation of the before/after analysis (you could even have both on one graph to make it even more clear for the reader to see).
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, all sources are cited under a “reference” heading.
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 authors provide a link to both the client and RCEA website. This is a good start, but there should be more links to related sites (i.e. maybe one that explains how their new lights will save energy. Some people may want to know!).
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 page should be a bit longer. Since the guideline is 2-3 pages, more content should be added. Although, most components of the project are addressed, they could be taken into more depth (especially the background.) More reference sites, and further explanation of the project (retrofit), company, and analysis should help you achieve the desired 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 page does NOT have the RCEA category. (I almost didn’t find the page; resultantly). However, the banner is present.
13.List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
The document is pretty well organized and straight forward. It addresses all elements of the project in a logical way.
14.List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
I feel the page layout could use some work, as well as the length and depth of the text. For more specific input read all above comments.
15.Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors)
The page has a solid foundation, but some texture can definitely be added. (meaning that there can be more depth, and an improved layout wouldn’t hurt.)