Yannick Nadeau's Peer Evaluation[edit source]
Name of Editor: Yannick Nadeau Contact Information: yrn2@humboldt.edu Names of Writers: Jeff Palumbo & James Kim
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.
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. Under Why Upgrade section explain who Wayne is even though it is fairly obvious he is the owner of Wayne Bare Trucking.
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. Under the would have heading maybe talk about why Wayne won’t have done an upgrade without the RCEA
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, who Wayne is, 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 Wayne Bare’s contact info. Need more figures maybe pics of the new lights and fixtures at the business that you could then reference in the page’s text.
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 references. Need more figures and captions for the page to make it more memorable. Most humans are very visual so definitely more graphics.
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.
They need to analyze their data from the business and display it but I understand you didn’t have time to complete that yet. It is good that you have the projected estimates for the business for when you do analyze the real data.
9. Are there any questions you have about the topic that are not addressed? Are the sources of the information clearly presented under “References”?
There is no reference section but the base structure is good it just needs to be expanded as mentioned before. It seems like, from your memo, that you know you need to reference and clarify so get to it.
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 applicable sites like maybe one to HSU’s website or RCEA’s website. I don’t know if Wayne Bare Trucking has a website. Technically you might want links to what a Kilowatt-hour is or carbon dioxide emissions are. Need reference summary.
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(structure) 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.)
You can improve in all areas as you know. Make sure you put more graphics in w/ captions and references in your text to those graphics such as label Wayne Bare logo Figure 1 and say in your text that Wayne Bare’s contact info can be found in Figure 1. Need reference summary about where you got the information you stated in the Appropedia page.
15. Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors)
You guys just need to get in gear and start filling in your page I understand you were behind and I hope my critiques help you move forward and supply some ideas how to edit your page. Good Luck and I won’t put off working on the page. Steady progress and you will not find it overwhelming.
Layton 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. I feel that the target audience for the writing in this document would be other business owners that are interested in energy efficiency in their businesses.
2. Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout? The headings make the document easy to follow. I would reassess the names of the headings and try to be more specific.
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. Some of the headings are used successfully. However, the headings in the form of a question are not appropriate for technical writing. The font on the project summary should match the other headings. The first heading should include a “prepared by” statement before your names. A level two heading may be appropriate for the background section; one for the RCEA and one for the business.
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 sentence seems clear enough. However, the second sentence has at least one grammatical error and is hard to follow. An improvement may be made by starting a new paragraph or subsection with the last fragmented sentence in the Background section.
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 document seems somewhat objective. The second sentence of the Retrofit section could be more objective by eliminating the words “very” and “surprisingly”. The word “flaws” implies objectivity. Try stating the wattage and lighting values and let the reader interpret the data.
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? By using the business logo at the top of your document it is implying that is a company correspondence. Maybe include a picture of the owner with the company logo under his picture.
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. Figures are not referred to in the text of the document. Sources of the company logo are not sited and no caption is included. A suggestion for incorporating figures into the document would include a picture of the new system with the components that were replaced called out in 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. This RCEA page has the estimates for dollar and energy savings as well as power and CO2 reductions. The next step would be to compare “apples to apples” and work in either power and/ or energy units. Include a table as a visual aid to the reader.
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 the size of the office? How many rooms were upgraded? The document does not include a reference 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? The document contains no links to related 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? At this point the document seems to be too short. Issues that remain to be addressed include: (1) results; (2) project summary with correct units; (3) the actual changes that were made; (4) office dimensions; and (5) when the retrofit occurred.
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 document contains both the required Engineering 115 banner and the RCEA category marker.
13. List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
The project summary section has some informative values of initial costs, payback, and energy savings. The font and use of the headings allows easy navigation from topic to topic in the document. The topics of the headings are interesting for the most part. It is obvious that the authors have actually talked to the business owner.
14. List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
Including a table and/or graph of your results would help the reader interpret the results of the investigation. As stated above, dimensions and pictures of the office and the system would illuminate the page. Eliminate the question headings and dial in the wording of the body of the text. Expand on the sections highlighted by headings.
15. Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors)
Look good so far. Looks like you guys are on the right track for creating an informative RCEA page that may be utilized by future energy efficiency conscience business owners.
Tau Perin Peer Edit[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 this site is students and people interested in the RCEA program. The addition of graphical representation of the data and possibly the addition of pictures of the business would be a plus.
2. Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout? The information presented is easy to navigate. The headings stand out and point to the information listed under them. The layout would be improved with the addition of more data.
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 are used successfully. There are excessive headings, the last three heading share a similar topic and could be combined. This may lead to the addition of more headings, which could be links and data analysis. Level two headings could be implemented in the data section creating sub categories that specify specific data; cost savings, and such.
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 first two topic sentences are clear. There were however not much body to back up the topic sentences in following topic sentences. The topic sentences for why upgrade and change could be more specific.
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 writing is objective. There seems to be no bias in the writing only factual statements. The word eco friendly in why upgrade could be replaced.
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? There is one figure and it is easy to understand.
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. No, The addition of pictures and the number of lights replaced would give some good data. The size of the building and times of business would provide a good data points.
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 bottom line was listed in figures. Providing a graph and data charts would be a good means to convey the data.
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 size of the building the number of trucks and the equipment used in the building. Also if the trucks in the are repaired at the business.
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 related to the site listed. There could be more technical data for the audience. If the data for given by pg&e was presented in a table as a comparison of one year to the next comparing cost and electrical use this might e appropriate.
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 could be longer. The addition of data tables, graphs, and links to appropriate sites would give a good amount to the body. There is also various sites to link to with ways to economize the trucks fuel use.
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 the banner is present, yes the correct categories are present.
13. List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
The strengths of the documents are direct and easy to read language.
14. List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
The addition of data tables and graphical analysis of power consumption and cost would be appropriate.
15. Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors)
The page could use some pictures a background and data figures. The addition of two or three more sentences to the last couple of headings would also improve the overall layout giving the body more substance.
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 Jeff and James 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 very easy to navigate, but primarily because there isn’t very much. I believe that the layout is too simplistic. I would take advantage of level two headers. It would make your page look neater and the content would be easier to navigate (i.e. put all information pertaining to the retrofits in a header named “retrofits” or something of the sort.)
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 states above, there was little use of headers (besides on type) so the page looked to simple and too specific. (i.e. almost every component of your page has a header). The page could definitely use a larger variety of headers to make it look more organized and so it will flow more logically. (i.e. make a large header with the smaller components that pertain to it underneath.)
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 are clear for your headings, but most of your headings only consist of a topic sentence. You really need a lot more 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)
There are too many adjectives in your writing. For instance, under your retrofits heading you state that, “they do not have a very big office” and “there are a surprising number of lights within it”. Both statements are based on opinion and when writing a technical document you want to eliminate all opinion and just stick to 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?
There is only one picture, and it is of the company’s logo. (Which should be placed so that your names are next to it; it looks sloppy). You need to add a lot more pictures to illustrate what the retrofit actually looked like and also maybe some graphs so the cost analysis will be easier to understand (Actually, you also didn’t include the actual cost analysis. This is a major component of your page, and you need to add it.)
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 only figure is the company logo and there is no caption. It isn’t incorporated, or referred to in the text. The main problem is that you just need more 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.
The predicted savings are posted, but not actual analysis is presented in the page. As stated earlier, this is a main component and purpose of these web pages. We are trying to determine if the RCEA’s client actually saved what was said. Without this analysis there is no point to the page. You must incorporate this element.
9.Are there any questions you have about the topic that are not addressed? Are the sources of the information clearly presented under “References”?
There are no sources to the information that is provided in the webpage. The information on the page is vague and I don’t have very much useful information about the retrofit itself (i.e. how many lights were actually replaced?)
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 pages within the given appropedia 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 too short. You need to add details, depth, and just more information to every aspect of your page. You fail to address the actual savings of the project, and many details throughout the entire page. The page really needs to be a lot longer and a lot more information can be presented about the background, what was done, and the cost analysis.
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.)
The page is really too simplistic to note any strengths. It’s started, but there is a lot of work that needs to be done.
14.List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
The page is too simplistic, short, and plain. It needs depth, more information, and all the components that were not included. (Read all comments above)
15.Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors)
I’m assuming your page was done at the last minute, so just be more tactful next time and put in the information you need to have a good looking, resourceful page that is worth the time to read it.