you should add the category - Category:Queens Green IT
Holly Leopardi's Peer Review[edit source]
Holly.leopardi Name of Editor:Holly Leopardi Contact Information: hfl2@humboldt.edu Names of Writers: Phillip Chapot and Brent Sanders
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. A person looking for specific, step by step instructions on how to use a KillAWatt Meter. 2. Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout? The step by step instructions in the Programming Price and Using a KillAWatt Meter to find yearly running costs are very clear and straight forward. It would have helped if I had a Meter and was trying to use it, however I believe that is the target audience so the information is easy to read based on that. 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 successful, the level two headings describing the two sections help make the page more clear. 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. Each paragraph has a strong topic sentence. 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 highly objective, all information is presented in a technical and precise way. 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 photographs are useful in showing the specific parts of the meter that are being discussed in the section and the step by step photos are very nice as they include a description and a visual of each step. 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 text in the paragraphs of the webpage does not refer to the pictures and there are no citations of the photos, these should be added. The captions under every figure are very descriptive and aid in the readers understanding of the figure and also the figures aid in the understanding of the information. 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”? There is no reference section. Maybe a list of common electronics that are very costly to run could be included, as well as a section of how exactly the KillAWatt meter works, as opposed to just an explanation of what it does. 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 link to the phantom power page was very helpful, perhaps more of this information could be included somewhere on your webpage. A few more links on the subject, some relating to costs of kilowatts per hour in different places in the world, or where a person can find a KillAWatt Meter. 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 very short. It accomplishes the ‘How To’ aspect, but I would like to see more links about cost and the product itself, as well as an explanation of how the KillAWatt meter measures energy use. 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 page has both.
13. List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
Strong use of technical writing and a very clear first paragraph describing the instrument. The step by step instructions are very clear and precise and the photographs help the reader visualize the process.
14. List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) This is a very short webpage, and it had no reference section. I would like to see some more external links to different sites with other information and maybe a more elaborate explanation of what common electronic devices use high amounts of KWh. Maybe something that could be added is the push that is occurring right now to develop devices that are more efficient, and also an explanation of how the meter calculates energy used and cost.
15. Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors) The information is very clear and consice and would aid someone looking for instructions on how to use this instrument. It would be helpful to me to have more information and explanation on the instrument itself. Holly.leopardi
David Colvin's peer review[edit source]
Name of Editor: David Colvin Contact Information: dcolvin@humboldt.edu Names of Writers: Phillip Chapot and Brent Sanders
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 page appears to be address to home owners / consumers.
2.Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout? I would suggest a short “general use” of the meter before going straight to programing in cost. The cost per year of a laptop should be an example but not the whole “how to.”
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 work, but I would suggest another heading for additional uses of the meter. (like measuring the volts or amps)
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 for the intro and price setting. But for the cost per year of a laptop, the other functions of the meter are just thrown in. (Another section should contain that 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) Very good, writing is short and concise. 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 green on the first picture is very hard to read (but labeled in caption). Close up pictures of the screen would be helpful. 7.�� 8.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, not referred to in text. Not labeled with figure #s. But good use of captions to explain whats going on. 9.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.
10.Are there any questions you have about the topic that are not addressed? Are the sources of the information clearly presented under “References”? No “references” section. (I don't know if you need one though) I would like to see more information on on the screen displays. (pictures of the screen display would probably be good enough) You mention it measures the appliance's efficiency, how? Is that just how much it cost per year or something else?
11.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? Uses two links, and they are both useful / relevant. More could be used, (perhaps for volts, amps, if they exist)
12.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 borders on too short. The information is there, but somethings could be better explained. (like more about volts and amps. Also general uses, maybe make suggestions on what types of things to use it for or what things to check for phantom loads. 13.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.
14.List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
Page looks good. I would suggest more suggestions for using the meter to cut energy use.
15.List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
Screen display pictures, suggestions for what to use the meter for, information about using volts and amps, figure references, general use of meter instead of just laptop example.
16.Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors)
Good job, short and concise. Doesn't need to be made a lot longer, but some clarification and additional information would be useful.
Chris Coutinho's 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. This page is targeted toward anyone interested in learning how to use a Kilowatt meter, and presents that information in a very simple structured manner
2. Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout? Yes, the page is short and sweet, getting to the point and moving on. I loved how going through the page is fast, as well as being able to recite what I had just learned in a vivid way. The last group of photos that demonstrate how to plug the device into the wall worked effectively as well, however you might want to move it between the two paragraphs because chronologically, you need to find the readings before you can decipher what they mean. I think that would make it flow a bit better, but otherwise it flows well.
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. Headings are very simplified and condensed, which make going through the page very easy to scan. If you’re trying to create girth for your page, you might want to add some information about how the device works and why someone would want to know their KWH rate.
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, each paragraph is descriptive in listing the steps required to set up the device, and also demonstrates what to do with the data readings one would receive. I would recommend that you maybe include an example solving an equation, which could even be related to your pictures. If you find out the kWh rate of your laptop, that would really make it stick
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, the authors seemed sure that they were writing technically, and it showed in the description.
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 images you used to explain how to use the device work very well. One comment I’d like to make about the first one, though, is that you might want to change the green color font to a darker on. The red one looks fine on the wood background, but the green is not visible until you open the picture up and really concentrate what it says. The last group of photos that demonstrate how to plug the device into the wall worked effectively as well, however you might want to move it between the paragraphs because you need to find the readings before you can decipher what they mean.
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 figures were actually descriptive enough, that most of the time I didn’t rely on the writing as much as I did on the images. The last group of photos that demonstrate how to plug the device into the wall worked effectively because they used the captions as a means of giving the steps as well as joining it to a picture.
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 an RCEA page so this does not apply
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 this device after reading the page.
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? No, this page has no references. It would increase the authors’ credibility if they cited a source, but because this is a simple procedure it might not need citation.
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 didn’t know it had to be close to 2 or 3 pages until I read this question. If indeed it needs to be that long, then the authors might want to expand on concepts surrounding the device. However, I think that the content correctly describes the procedure, and that’s all it’s supposed to do.
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, it has the ‘work in progress’ banner and the correct categories labeled.
13. List the strengths of document: The page is very short, sweet and consise. This is very effective because the procedure is simple and should not be dwelled on extensively.
14. List areas for improvement: Some areas where this page could improve include adding information about how the device works and why someone would want to know their KWH rate.
15. Overall comments: Great project page, I can tell you worked a while on this page and I hope my comments have you some help in improving your page