Name of Editor:Enrique Diaz Contact Information:Eid4@humboldt.edu Names of Writes:Colin Stewart and Taylor Erb

• 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 of this document are people that do not have any background information on the solar radiation monitoring station and the writing is appropriate for the audience because this page has explanations of the project

• 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. To improve the layout i would put in some headings such as "What is PSP" or "Amount of Radiation collected on x day", i would also place some images on the location of the project on campus because i am visual learner and i like to see what is happening.

• 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 used are successful in conveying the information to a reader but there are not enough headers to explain throughly what the project is actually doing to benefit mankind. The page needs helpful links and a links header. Another possible header could be "How to use PSP."

• 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.

There are topic sentences for each paragraph and the following sentences do relate to the topic sentences. There is a topic sentence near the bottom that with "Because" which could be changed to "Due to."

• 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 and it communicates the facts and i could not find opinions in sentences

• 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 are no photographs or graph in this page yet, but as mentioned above i would include pictures of the solar panels and location of the project. Graphs could show the amount of the radiation collected by the diffuse radiation vs the global radiation.

• 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 writer does not refer tot the figures in the text using figure numbers due to the lack of pictures/figures. No pictures no text description or citations, captions

• 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 HEIF project

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

yes , what is the yearly cost of the project? How can i get involved with the Solar monitoring station? the sources are clearly presented under "references" but the page is not using the reference tool in appropedia which makes the citation process much easier and gives it more professionalism.

• 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 author provides a link to a related sites that is relevant and i believe the link is technical enough for the audience of the document. there are not enough links and the link present is in url format on the page and it would look cleaner if it was edited to just show the name of the site and not the url. There is a summary of references at the end. one quick suggestion here would be to use (*) to bullet the references. there is a summary of resources at the end of the page

• 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?

▪ According to the recommended length of the page, this page is too short. I recommend the following:

graphs photographs, a picture of the both of you by the solar panels( if possible) More headers to make the page user friendly

• 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?

▪ Not applicable to this page

[edit] the strengths of the documents are: page is informative easy to read the writing is objective and shows facts [edit] areas for improvement labeled graphs Tables photographs use reference tool it helped me.


===Overall comments===

The both of you need to communicate to get page up to a standard length and quality in the few week left in the semester. Dustin and Beth are always willing to help and if you guys need help. [edit] Comments _Elisabeth Johnson Name of Editor: Elisabeth Johnson Contact Information: ej22@humboldt.edu Names of Writers: Colin Stewart and Taylor Erb

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 like the target audience is people that know a little about solar power, and want to know what HSU is doing with solar. It seems to address this audience well.

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

   The first two paragraphs are well written, but the short paragraphs toward the end need some work. The use of  headings would be nice to help navigate, tell what the paragraph is addressing.

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.

   As mention previously headings would make the information easier to navigate through. It would also make the page more aesthetically pleasing. You could break you page up into “How SoRMS works”

“Who maintains SoRMS” “What is SoRMS”

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 paragraphs are well written, both have clear topic sentences and all the information following relates to the topic. The last three paragraphs are a little harder to follow, I feel like they could almost be combined into one paragraph about who runs the program, the part about the need for clearing of dew could be included in the second paragraph while talking about the pyranomter.

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) Sound 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?

   Some photos would really make a difference to the overall look of the page. A pic. of  a pyranometer, a pic. of some of the people that volunteer, as well as a pic. of the actual SoRMS station would be nice.

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 figures, but don't forget captions when you do add pictures.

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”?

   Where is the monitoring facility located? Is it open for students/public to view/tour? Is this monitoring the radiation to use for theoretical productivity calculations or are there PV panels at the site of data collection?

I suggest a more clear presentation of your references.

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?

   It doesn't look like here are links to related sites, they all are under references, that is why I suggest you present more clearly.

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 page has lots of good information, I think that if you added a couple of pictures and addressed the questions posed in question nine (above) your page would be complete. 

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?

   This page was harder to find because it wasn't in the ENGR 115 category. Also it should be under the HEIF category.

13.List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) The information is there, the objective of SoRMS is clearly states, as well as defining what takes place during the monitoring.



14.List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) Adding some pictures, and headings would make the page look better. A little more organization I think is needed.



15.Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors) Good start. I think that with a little more organization, some pictures, and some details filled in here and there all areas will be covered.

User:ElisabethJ

Retrieved from "https://www.appropedia.org/Talk:The_Solar_Radiation_Monitoring_Station"