Get our free book (in Spanish or English) on rainwater now - To Catch the Rain.

Changes

Jump to: navigation, search

Talk:RCEA energy audit reviews/Wildberries Marketplace

4,811 bytes added, 07:10, 5 November 2009
no edit summary
[[user:ndb21|Nathan Braun]]
 
==Review: Nathan Hawk==
 
[[user:Noh2|Nathan Hawk]]
 
'''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 is towards individuals who want to know about Wildberries electrical usage and what they have done to cut down on electrical
 
 
'''2. Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout?'''
 
It was fairly easy to navigate. A more descriptive table of contents with more sections could make certain info easier to find
 
 
'''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 would create a few more headings in order split up and better describe the overview sections. Some level 2 heading would be nice to see. Other than that the headings are in good logical order and place.
 
 
'''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 would say u did a good job with your topic sentences and relating your fallowing sentences. In the post retrofit section, 1st paragraph, you explain how Phil is highly pleased with the retrofit, but then go on to say parts of his decisions were unwise. You might want to better organize this part. Maybe a separate section for that part
 
'''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’s a few adjectives/adverbs you could look at.
Ex. “highly probable” (retrofit effect/paragraph 2)
Ex. “a lot more lighting” (lighting retrofit/paragraph 1)
 
 
'''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 thought the pictures were good and well place. The graph is kind of hard to read, so you might want to enlarge it a lil.
 
 
'''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.'''
 
Only two out of four figures included text. You should add text to the others. I liked the text you added to the picture who had 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.'''
 
Yes this is all clearly stated in the page. If possible you could add future predictions for these rates.
 
 
'''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 a photovoltaic system? You mentioned this but did not explain what it was.
Yes sources were 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?'''
 
I couldn’t find any links to related sites or a summary of references. Make sure this gets done
 
 
'''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 of good length. All the information that was asked for seems to be there.
 
 
'''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'''
 
The page has a good fluid order to it. I liked the pictures you took to help explain the sections. The writing was mostly all very easy to understand. It’s a very good first draft.
 
 
'''14. List areas for improvement'''
 
Explain what CFL bulbs are. (Is that a prefix for something?)
Retrofit effect/paragraph 2 - “ …more warmth. Thus, while…- this part seems like it could be written better.
 
'''15. Overall comments'''
 
Good job on the page, it shouldn’t take long for you to finish a final version due to your strong efforts on the first draft.
 
 
 
[[user:Noh2|Nathan Hawk]]
46
edits

Navigation menu