Please share any tips or observed flaws here.
Cailan's Comments[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 article targets those interested in learning about a successful student initiated PV project.
- 2. Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout?
Yes, and with some shifting it will be even better, see below.
- 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 like the headings, they are broken up logically and cover the relevant topics. I would use a different order though. Try a temporal sequence like: Timeline (an over view), Proposal, Funding, Installation, and maybe an extra section for “things left to do”. I think the “phases” in the installation section belongs in the timeline section, maybe just stick to what was actually installed and put everything else in the “things left to do” section.
- 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.
Yes, some sentences could be moved, see above.
- 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.
- 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 schematic of the PV system would be helpful for your system explanation.
- 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. Refer to the cost chart. Also, add some schematics so you can refer to those too.
- 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”?
The sources of information are presented. Information used should be referenced in the text 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, is objective, and clear.
- 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, and reorganize the document flow.
Bryan Schmitt's Peer Review[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 audience for this document is anyone who is interested in knowing how and why solar panels were installed on the music building’s roof.
2. Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout?
Yes, I find it easy to navigate with each section having its own heading and bold point. It is easy to locate all the information, but I would improve the layout by having more sections on different aspects of the project.
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 think the headings are used very well because it gives direction to the page. Yes, they are specific enough by using key words such as Funding and Installation. I think that some of the headers should be moved. For example I would make how it works first with funding at the end. By making the proposal first it might give a quick clear understanding of the project as a whole.
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.
Yes, there is a clear topic sentence for each section and all following sentences in the paragraph follow the topic sentence. I do not think the topic sentences need improvement. They are clear and precise. I think some paragraphs could be expanded on with further 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)
I do not find the page objective. Every sentence seems to be neutral and bias language is not present.
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? Yes, every chart and photograph is easy to understand. I like the chart because it highlights the total cost at the very bottom. I do not think the chart and photo could be improved in anyway. Only thing I would say is maybe add some more images to the page..
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 author does not refer to the chart with numbers. The chart is also not mentioned within the text. The picture does not have a caption and could use one. I think by making captions and referring to the chart in section of funding would help.
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 is not a 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”?
I do not have any questions about the topic. The information is clearly represented under References. All sources are located under the 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?
Yes, the author provides external sites. I think there is a good amount of external sites. There is a summary of references and the links better enforce the pages purpose.
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? I think the document is to short and information needs to be added for each section. I think the author could address more on the proposal and installation.
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 think the page is strong in its intentions. It is a good start with enough information to get the point across on the subject.
14. List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
I think the page could be improved by adding a lot more information. Each section is to short and I think by adding more information from the proposal will help the reader.
15. Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors) Keep up the work and try to expand on the ideas you have created. Don’t be shy to add a lot of information to better enforce the topic.
Name of Editor: Trevor Hash Contact Information: tch29 or cell (707)407-8595 Names of Writers: Alexander Albin, Michael Chenaille
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 of this document is college students and above. I was somewhat confused in some parts of the page, mainly the how it works section. 2. Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout? The page is chronological, making it easy to follow throughout the entire page. 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 found no problems with the headings at all. Well done. 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 only paragraph I felt that needed some clarification was the “Specification” paragraph. The paragraph needs a better intro, and possibly new name, to just make sure that the audience can identify what the paragraph will talk about before they actually read it. 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 is no bias identifiable by the reader at this time. 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 photograph of the panels is a great way for the reader to understand what is being discussed in the writing. The only figure I would suggest is something that has to do with the specification paragraph, in which a visual would be very beneficial. Explaining the concepts that are discussed could probably be more easily conveyed through picture rather than words. Also, the table that is used on the page is somewhat hard to see, and therefore hard to understand. Making it bigger would most likely help. 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 writing refers to the table that is presented in the funding section. It is a very good visual, but is just lacking in visual appeal. When I read the page I didn’t feel the need to read the table because it was hard to see and understand. 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. NA 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 questions are somewhat not addressed just because the actual savings after the project have not been recorded. This is of no fault to the author, but the actual savings would benefit the page extraordinarily. 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? Yes, the author provided links to pages in which they referenced for their information. There is a good amount, but I think citing the source that the authors spoke to about the project should be stated. 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 actually a perfect length. It is just the length needed to keep a reader interested long enough to finish the page, but not too short to not supply enough information. 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 has all the necessary categories needed.
13. List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
There was no syntax or grammatical errors. I felt that the biggest strength was the chronological order in which the information was placed. This allows readers to read straight through the page without confusion.
14. List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
The only improvement I can state is to present the actual savings of energy and money to convey the fact that the project actually worked.
15. Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors)
Honestly, Good work.