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

Talk:HEIF CCAT solar hot water system

From Appropedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Cailan's Comments[edit]

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. The target audience includes persons interested in learning about the CCAT solar hot water system.
  • 2. Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout? Break up sections into appropriate paragraphs, this will make your page much easier to navigate. Put long quotes into separate blocks rather than in the body of the paragraph.
  • 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. For the most part yes. I would remove Solar Hot Water from the second heading and call it system cycle or system description etc.
  • 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 Solar Hot Water System section has no topic sentence, it jumps right into the system cycle. Start with something like “System X happens in Y steps”, also make the Components part of this 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) I wouldn’t call CCAT projects clever, that is subjective. What is a green ideal? – too ambiguous.
  • 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? A more detailed schematic specifically of the CCAT system would be an improvement.
  • 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. Do all of these to incorporate the figure.
  • 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.
  • 9. Are there any questions you have about the topic that are not addressed? Are the sources of the information clearly presented under “References”? Was the information pulled from the proposal? Were components quoted used in the final design? Add appropriate references in the paragraph body.
  • 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? Links are good, add more though. For instance, the HEIF 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? Length is fine
  • 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 site hits upon the major points.

  • 14. List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)

Expand the system description to include a better picture and numbered description.

Benjamin Stern's Comments[edit]

User: brs34 Name of Editor: Benjamin Stern Contact Information: brs34@humboldt.edu Names of Writers: Adam McGuire and Nate Theobald

Writing Issue Comments

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 seems to be the higher educated public local to Humboldt County interested in creating their own solar water heating system. The vocabulary is advanced, which is fine, but there can be more explanation of what things are, like propylene glychol, hydronic heating elements, solar augmentation, etc,. You assume that the audience already knows about solar heating systems and you jump straight into the site-specific system at CCAT. More explanations and images would broaden your audience.

2) Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout? The information displayed is too bulky and dense, which makes it hard to scan and pick out the most important information. You should break up the paragraphs for easier reading. Examples: in the first section of CCAT Overview I would separate the mission statement from the rest of the paragraph to make it stand out. Same with the example you used in the Solar Thermal Panels section. In the CCAT Solar Hot Water System section I would number bullet each phase of the process, probably do the same for the components 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. Good amount of headings for amount of information, could add more information. The headings do summarize each section well.

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 of sections Solar Hot Water System and Solar Thermal Panels can be improved. The topic sentence of the first section mentioned is not a true topic sentence. You jump straight into the heart of the paragraph. There is no introduction or brief definition of a solar hot water system or an overview of CCAT's system specifically. The second topic sentence mentioned is too long and should be splint into two. The true topic sentence should briefly state what a solar thermal panel is, to eliminate confusion between a PV panel. The following sentence should then mention that there are two on the roof of CCAT, which are produced by Schueco.

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) All the technical writing about the system is objective. The first paragraph has a little bit of personality. The last sentence of the paragraph is unnecessary and redundant.

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?

More images would enhance your webpage. Pictures and picture captions attract readers' attention more than paragraphs. I would include a photo of CCAT, preferably with the solar thermal panels in sight. I would add a picture of the Phoenix at the CCAT, a close up of a Solar Thermal Panel, and a diagram of a hydronic heating path. Also, if the information is available, include a timeline of the progress of this project.

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 image you do have is very helpful in visualizing the system, but you should incorporate it with the text. The image does have its own arrows pointing to the components of the system, but the only other caption is your dense paragraph. I would periodically include in the paragraph for the reader to refer to the image. Also, you should add a link for the image.

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 webpage does not involve RCEA.

9) Are there any questions you have about the topic that are not addressed? Are the sources of the information clearly presented under “References”?

Questions: How is the solar hotwater system at CCAT unique? Is the system at CCAT currently at its full potential? In what ways can it be improved? How long will the system last? What is solar augmentation? What are examples of nontoxic heating agents? I don’t think all your sources are included in your reference section. Your should include the addresses of all your links.

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 to have all of your links embedded into context rather than having separate sentences to include a link. Your reference collection is too short. You should obtain your information from a wider variety of sources, besides the PDF documents from CCAT.

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 webpage is sufficient length. Again I recommend adding information about CCAT's unique system and how solar hotwater systems vary depending on site-specific factors.

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 and category is present.


13) List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)

Short and to the point, concise and detailed information (no unnecessary fluff), Sections are organized in an appropriate order.


14) List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)

Formatting the webpage for easy reading and to attract the reader’s eye, more images, better introduction to Solar Hotwater systems.


15) Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors)

Good first draft, I look forward to seeing your final draft, I hope my comments are helpful.

User: brs34

USER:WDB6 Peer Review[edit]

Name of Editor: William Brown

Contact Information: wdb6@humboldt.edu

Names of Writers: Adam McGuire & Nate Theobald

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 may include people interested in learning about ways CCAT practices sustainable technology, or people looking for information on solar hot water systems. The content of the webpage include to many undefined technical terms like, propylene glycol and recirculating hydronic heating path that are not defined clear enough for an audience not familiar with the technical jargon. A rule of thumb is to define all technical jargon if you are to use it or provide a link to a separate site that will further define it.

2. Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout?

The information is presented in a way that is easy to navigate. I would suggest that you break up some of the sections into two paragraphs or into another subsection to make it easier to understand. For example under “Solar Thermal Panels” It could be explained in more detail and broken into three paragraphs or subsection, panels, plumbing, and temperature exchange. Use bullets to emphasize steps in the processes, so that each step can be seen clearer.

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 used can be a little more specific and relevant to the content. For example as stated above the “Solar Thermal Panels” should really be broken into three separate subheadings. These could be changed to Solar thermal panels, Pluming of the solar hot water system, temperature exchange.

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 do not clearly define everything in the paragraph. This can be resolved by breaking up breaking up the paragraphs. The funding topic sentence isn’t clear this can be changed by saying “CCAT received funding for the project through a grant allocated by…”

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 for the most part is objective. The information about CCAT needs revision. The first sentence states that CCAT focuses on appropriate technology on campus, but at the end you state that it also does so in “surrounding areas.” Also instead of “brought many clever projects” try “have implemented projects”

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 photo that you have is clear and is a great contribution to your page. Add a picture of the actual system in CCAT. For the solar panels section you can add a photo of the actual panels located on the roof. You can also draw a diagram of the plumbing on their system.

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 numbers for the picture but you do clearly reference the picture in the paragraph. Where did you get this picture? You can even add a caption to clearly describe the picture in more detail.

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.

Not an RCEA page

9. Are there any questions you have about the topic that are not addressed? Are the sources of the information clearly presented under “References”?

Provide a link to another page or clearly define heat transfer. What is the efficiency of the water heater with out the natural gas? How much sun do the panels get per day here in Humboldt? How long will it take the glycol to heat the water? You say the glycol reaches a temp of 135 but how much of this heat is transferred to the water? What is the tonnage on the system when just run on solar?

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 links are related but more need to be added. Do not say “can be found here,” for example instead of “The grant proposal submitted by the student directors can be viewed here” say the student directors submitted a grant on (date). Also include a link to the CCAT webpage on Humboldts website.

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 of sufficient length but could easily be expanded with more detail.

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 appropriate category links are included.

13. List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)

The document is to the point, and clear for someone with pre-existing technical knowledge.

14. List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)

Webpage contains lots of spelling and grammatical errors. Add more pictures


15. Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors)

Great job so far. I cant wait to see the final draft. Very interesting content

User:Carlos Carma[edit]

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. It seems the target audience in this case is one who at least possesses a high-school level science background. The language used is appropriate, as well as the visual aids. The extra CCAT information is especially helpful for those who aren’t familiar.

2. Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout?

Definitely. The information is organized in a logical, clear way. One change that could be made to the layout is to re-organize section 2 into a list format. This would be a nice compliment to the graphic.

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 clear enough and logically organized; however, section 3.1 is spelled incorrectly twice.

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. They are all fine with the exception of section 2. A topic sentence should introduce the explanation.

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 overview of CCAT should be edited for biases. Some of the diction is too exaggerative (i.e. “hopefully, long time, countless”). Also, the use of “surprisingly” is not clear in the “Phoenix” section. These were the only instances the writing wasn’t 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 graphic is great. It has a good size, and the color-coding helps a great deal to understand the temperature changes.
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 figure isn’t titled or specifically referred to in the text. The artist of the graphic should be included. Is it an original drawing? However, the explanation of the process is good as well as the conveyance of it in the graphic.
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. N/A

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 clearly cited. The only issue that isn’t addressed (either in the content or the “Outstanding Issues” section) is the importance of disposal of the propylene glychol.

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 an adequate number of links and they are all relevant and working. Perhaps the Phoenix link is a bit too technical, but it seems necessary.

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 length is good.

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.)
I

t’s very clear and to-the-point. There isn’t any irrelevant information, and the graphic clearly illustrates the process being described. Headings are logically arranged and selected.


14. List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
There are grammatical and/or spelling errors in every section of the page. The whole document needs to be re-edited for these errors. I noticed at least 10 (including the misspelled heading Phoenix).


15. Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors)

The grammatical errors can be distracting when reading the page, especially since there is so much technical writing. Upon correction, the content should be scanned and keywords bolded as to ensure the clear conveyance of your central point. It would also be a good idea to include another visual aid (such as a graph) when the financial information is presented. Overall, good job!

308 Editing Comment[edit]

Hey guys, I would have liked to see more edits. This was pretty minimal. --MeghanHeintz 21:51, 17 October 2011 (PDT)