Suggested more external links needed - Design for reuse and PhoneStory serious game
This seems to be a very relevant topic in today's world - the page represents a good start but it would be nice to add some more references and ideas, e.g.:
- The "design for re-use" perspective proposed as part of Paul Palmer's Zero Waste ideas (http://www.gettingtozerowaste.com/)
- A more critical perspective on the current practice of designing for rapid obsolescence/upgrade of mobile phones - e.g. as expressed in the Molleindustria-developed short "serious game" about mobile phones, http://www.phonestory.org/. (Note that on the game's website some useful authoritative links are provided).
- Perhaps some critical discussion in light of the above of the argument that modern smart-phones may allow so much functionality that it reduces the need for desktop computers and certain specialised devices. Though this would need to take into account the full LCA costs of mobile phones.
Reviews of page during class discussions
Emily's responses
Emily's Responses:
1. What is the most important strength of this document?
The content follows logically, and the breadth of research is inclusive and complete.
2. What is the most important aspect to change?
The document could stand to be edited for consistency of style, and grammatical and spelling errors.
3. How could the navigation of the document be improved?
Something to break up the text a bit more on the latter half of the page would create more balance and reading ease.
4. Do you have suggestions for improving the headings used in the document?
The lower case headings can be turned into subheadings, allowing for a clearer delineation between topics.
5. Are there any topic sentences that should be improved?
Topic sentences are pretty good.
6. Do all figures have captions, figure numbers and are they referred to in the text?
The first cell phone figure doesn't have a caption, but it's more of a picture than a "figure," so I'm not sure on that one. Maybe you could put the citation in the caption but not refer to it in the text because it doesn't require a discussion?
7. Is there at least one reference per author? Are the references cited properly and do they use the format described here?
The references are sound, there are more references than authors.
8. Are tables included as text whenever possible? (Appropedia can search text in tables – so Lonny prefers tables to be text rather than images). This page contains information on how to make tables http://www.appropedia.org/Help:Table_examples
The one table is an image and could benefit from being transcribed.
9. Should the document be shortened or lengthened? If so, what suggestions do you have.
I think the document is a good length.
10. Any other questions or comments for the authors?
The content and organization is logical, informative and complete. I think the document could benefit from the addition of a table or figure towards the end to break up the text. Other than editing for grammatical errors, and the transcription of the table to an Apropedia format, the document is good and complete. Nice job.
End of Emily's responses
Nicholas Hoffman's Responses
Beginning of Nicholas Hoffman's Responses:
1. What is the most important strength of this document?
There are effective topic sentences as well as references to figures.
2. What is the most important aspect to change?
See #5
3. How could the navigation of the document be improved?
Make headings such as “Growth” and “Projected Lifespan” into subheadings. This is done with the following source code in Appropedia: “===subheading===”
4. Do you have suggestions for improving the headings used in the document?
The main headings “Cell Phone Usage” and “Disposal” could benefit from paragraphs that introduce the subsequent discussions.
5. Are there any topic sentences that should be improved?
All of the paragraphs seem to have effective topic sentences, but only the first three paragraphs have transitional sentences. The other paragraphs could benefit from more developed transitional sentences.
6. Do all figures have captions, figure numbers and are they referred to in the text?
The figures could use more detailed descriptions, but good use of numbering
7. Is there at least one reference per author? Are the references cited properly and do they use the format described here? http://www.appropedia.org/Help:Footnotes
References look good
8. Are tables included as text whenever possible? (Appropedia can search text in tables – so Lonny prefers tables to be text rather than images). This page contains information on how to make tables http://www.appropedia.org/Help:Table_examples
Either need to summarize table and input in Appropedia format, or completely remake current table in Appropedia format
9. Should the document be shortened or lengthened? If so, what suggestions do you have.
See #5, but good overall coverage of material
10. Any other questions or comments for the authors?
Good job overall. Any topic such as a cell phone that includes electronics is a broad topic to assess, but you did a good job covering all of the bases.
End of Nicholas Hoffman's Comments
From Cailan
What is the most important strength of this document?
The growth and land fill sections left an impression on me. There were some surprising facts too.
What is the most important aspect to change?
Quantify more of the sections (manufacturing and energy use) and remove the informal first person narrative.
I would add sub-headings. Break the document up into background information and cell phone cycle. For example Background would have, growth, projected lifespan, etc. and the Cycle would have, manufacturing, usage, energy, disposal, reuse, recycling, landfilling etc.
Do you have suggestions for improving the headings used in the document?
Consistency with capitalization.
Are there any topic sentences that should be improved?
Make all the topic sentences similar to those in the growth and projected lifespan sections. Both of those sections clearly summarize the paragraph's topic while including a strong bit of factual information.
Do all figures have captions, figure numbers and are they referred to in the text?
All figures have captions. I would add a caption of your own to the table. The captions should be longer. For Figure 2 I recommend numbering the components in paint, or a similar program, and then explain them in the caption.
Is there at least one reference per author? Are the references cited properly?
Yes, the references are used effectively.
Are tables included as text whenever possible?
No, tables would be effective for a summary of statistics at the end. A summary of total energy needed or material would be nice.
Should the document be shortened or lengthened? If so, what suggestions do you have.
The document is a good length. However, I recommend the addition of more content to the manufacturing section.
Any other questions or comments for the authors?
The manufacturing section should be a large part of the process. Currently this section is vague and informal in tone. Try quantifying the energy costs for cell phone production. Plastic use?