Brandon Storer Peer Review
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.
A: The targeted audience for this writing seems to be general. The information given is brief and not in too much depth. The page does give what cogeneration is and ow it is used, but lack to explain in the same detail how the HSU system works or is projected to work.
2. Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout?
A: The navigation is easy to navigate, saying that I suggest the costs section should be placed towards the end of the 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.
A: I see no headings used unsuccessfully or the lack of headings. The headings are specific and are in chronological order. The only suggestion would be to create a level 2 heading for the defining of cogeneration and for other examples of it leading into the page.
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.
A: The background and technical info sections of the page need to have more clear topic sentences and better supporting data.
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)
A: The writing does not seem to be objective, so I suggest keeping the page technical and to leave out anything that would sound opinion based or bias.
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: There needs to be more photographs and/or diagrams. The page is too plain and a diagram would give the reader a better understanding of cogeneration is there was a diagram.
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.
A: Once, you place more photos and/or diagrams, make sure to refer to them and to label them to not confuse the reader.
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.
A: 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”?
A: Can you explain the Basic Cycle of the page a little more in depth?
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?
A: The district energy: winter 2004 newsletter reference is repeated 4 times. I suggest that you take out the repeats to avoid confusing the readers.
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?
A: The document is much too short. There needs to be more detail in the basic cycle section of the page along with the technical info section.
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?
A: The page has an "ENGR 115: In Progress" banner.
List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
•The document is easy to navigate and gives lots of references.
•Gives an in-depth definition of cogeneration.
List areas for improvement
•Needs more information
•Needs to remove repeated references
•Needs more pictures and/or diagrams
•Needs to label and refer to the pictures and/or diagrams
Overall comments
•The overall page is good, you just need more information. Also pictures and diagrams are greatly needed, understanding how cogeneration works is much easier to do thru diagrams rather than just text. Also fix the repeating references and clean up the background and technical info sections by using better topic sentences and stronger support for them.
Brandon Storer
Chad Herrick Peer Review
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 the target audience is students who are interested in learning about cogeneration, along with environmentally conscious people.
2. Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout?
For the most part the information is easy to navigate, but the table of contents should be above the first 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.
I think the headings are specific, but are not in logical order. The first paragraph is awkward because it has no heading and contains a lot of information.
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.
There is only one true paragraph, it has a clear topic paragraph. I think a paragraph or heading should be added that explains the differences in the CHP systems.
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 is very objective and explicative.
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 looks like a picture of a cargo container to me it is also too small, make a link to a bigger version. A technical diagram or drawing would be beneficial.
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.
All figures have good references, and are explained with text
9. Are there any questions you have about the topic that are not addressed? Are the sources of the information clearly presented under “References”?
Why is the cogeneration unit not going to be fixed? Who was the third party who helped pay for the unit? This page has well cited sources.
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 there are plenty of links to related sites. There is no summary of references.
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 too short, the technical info needs to be much longer, make a section explaining the CHP systems.
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 document has a lot of solid information, and is well cited.
14. List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
There needs to be more organization, I feel it has no real logical order.
15. Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors) This page needs to be longer and have more organization.
Name of Editor: Shane Mallory
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. People interested in doing retrofits for something similar they have. 2. Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout? I would improve the layout by not putting the subtitles in bold. It dristracts away from the main title above it. There is no graph on the page and I would have a few more pictures and depth in the titles. 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. There is no header on the first idea/paragraph. Also is the subtitles in bold are a distraction and pull your attention away. I would also like to see more about the technical information. 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. All the paragraphs have a clear topic sentence. The first paragraph starts off real strong with the definition of cogeneration. The first three sentences under technical information don’t really relate to the rest of the information around them. 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 is 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 picture is easy to see and understand. It should be larger because it’s a bit a small how it is now. There also should be a big addition of more pictures. Perhaps a diagram. 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 numbers are vaguely explained in the text and in some areas seem irrelevant. The numbers are all cited. I would try and add a graph to visually explain the savings. More detail and explaination of the savings are happening. 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. They have not presented this information. It can be clearly presented with its own header and sub sections along with a colorful well displayed graph. 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 all the information on the retrofits and more information on their savings. Are the sources of the information clearly presented under references, yes. 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 sites that are linked to are good sites. They are well presented and easy to read. I would add some more links with more variety. 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 too short. There is a missing space about the retrofits on the cogengeration and no graphs and limited pictures. 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 the engr 115 banner at the top and the engr 115 at the bottom. There is no RCEA energy audit at the bottom.
13. List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
Strong explanation of cogeneration.
14. List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
How does it relate and benefit the people. I would include more graphs and pictures along with detail including how much money this is saving the university or more depth into the amount of energy consumed and maintained. Possibly more updated information with its future.
15. Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors)
Good start, a bit short and vague and leaving the reader with lots of questions.
[Shane Mallory]
User:Julien Coppieters Peer Review
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, I think, is anyone who might be interested in cogeneration and the system at HSU.
2. Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout?
The information is a little scattered. Maybe a little more thought should be put towards the organization of ideas.
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 accurate for the information that follows but could use better organization. The first paragraph is a bit odd as it is the largest and has no headings or apparent organization.
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 are clear and the sentences following, for the most part, relate back. However, there’s not much written below each heading. I recommend adding some more content to each paragraph.
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 is well written and 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?
There’s only one picture and it is a little confusing. I’m not totally sure what I’m looking at. The page could use a few figures explaining the data apparent in the text.
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 page lacks any visual figures. There are good figure numbers in the text but they would do best partnered with visuals.
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’m confused as to what the goal of this project was. What is the data supporting? Was something tested? Sources are well cited.
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 many relevant links. Well cited and well referenced.
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 a bit short. There’s plenty of room to add more content as well as visual aids.
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.
Good information. Sources well cited.
14. List areas for improvement.
The page could use some visual aids. Some more content would be welcome. There’s a lack of organization among ideas.
15. Overall comments.
The page contains good information but needs some more content, visuals and organization.
gobly gook[edit source]
asdasdfgjkasfjklasf