Lynette Villagomez'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. The target audience seems to be those who participated in the retrofit analysis as opposed to a wide audience who knows nothing about the project. There should be more explanation of the overall analysis so the broader audience understands the intent of the retrofit analysis.
2.Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout? There isn’t a lot of content so it is easy for the reader to sift through information. “Retrofit information” is vague heading and could have been broken down with subheadings instead of questions, where the questions are integrated into the text.
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 use of headings, but lack of subheadings (level two headings). The headings are very general. It may have been more useful to the reader if there was a breakup of the content that is under “Retrofit Information,” – each subheading may address what type of information you’re discussing regarding the retrofit. “Energy Consumption” might have been better used as a subheading with a “level 1 heading” like “analysis of energy retrofit” describing info regarding what the predicted savings were, what was found from your analysis of the bill and “energy consumption” info.
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 are clear topic sentences, but they are formed as Q’s & A’s, which seems awkward. It would be best to integrate the questions in the text and have a full paragraph instead of Q’s & A’s. In the “energy consumption” paragraph was it a lighting retrofit that was performed, or an energy retrofit?
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. There are no opinions stated by the writers, the opinions of the clients regarding the work performed by RCEA
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? Each photograph is easy to understand and see. The graph is not very easy to see. Also, the graph maybe easier to interpret if the dots are connected with lines, to see the overall trend of the data. It may be useful for the reader and for more content, if there is a table with estimates predicted by RCEA and the actual findings you found from the bill analysis.
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 graph is referred to in the text, but there are no sources cited. There is a caption indicating the dates of energy consumption. It would be useful to plot separate lines before the retrofit for each year being compared to after the retrofit to see if each line follows a general trend and to see the difference of energy consumption before and after the retrofit.
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. There is a graph that shows energy consumed over time, but there is neither graphical info nor tables that show predictions made by RCEA regarding energy and savings versus what they found when analyzing the bill. It would be a good idea to tell the reader what RCEA predicted and if their predictions were correct or not, and what the reasons might be for the predictions being correct or incorrect. Also you should have come up with your own figures based on the energy bill analysis, and theses estimates should have been discussed in on the 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 have questions regarding what RCEA’s predicted overall savings would be and if they were achieved by the analysis you did on the client’s energy bill. There was very little discussion about savings and comparisons which was the objective of the project. Did your group make any calculations and comparisons? If the questions I have had been addressed, I think there would be a lot more need for references to be inserted in your page. Otherwise, there is not a lot of need for references. Despite all that, the references you do have are clearly presented.
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 links to related sites, but none are for technical information. It would be useful to have a link to sites that explain technical information such as fluorescent vs. incandescent lighting. There is relevance for the RCEA link, but there is no outright link to the ACS webpage, only reference links to dollar figures and mission statement. It would have been useful at the first mention of ACS to have a direct link to their site. There is a summary of references, but I don’t think that the references had much relevance to the appropedia page and the objective of the retrofit analysis.
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 short. There is a lack of explanation regarding RCEA’s predicted savings and reduced emission rates. There is no comparison of figures found from the bill analysis to what was predicted by RCEA. There is no indication of wheter RCEA was or was not correct in their predictions and what factors may have attributed to the outcome.
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 banner and both categories are on the page.
13. List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) -There are good photographs and a good introduction about the client you are doing the retrofit analysis about. The page is easy to follow, each point is stated clearly.
14. List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) -There should be more discussion and content regarding the predicted savings, payback etc. that RCEA provided you and a comparison of their predictions to what you found in your energy bill analysis. Maybe more info about the technical aspect of the overall retrofit process, how and what they did to the building, how long it took, is there any changes other than the retrofit that may affect the energy consumption etc.
15. Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors) -Good start, but there is a lot more data that can be discussed on your page regarding the data that you analyzed and the figures that were predicted by RCEA.
Chris DeFoney's Peer review[edit source]
Chris put comments within the body of my appropedia page, Beth told me to type this: Josh Bancroft
Name of Editor: Chris DeFoney
Contact Information: Cd102@humboldt.edu
Names of Writers: Josh Bancoft & Chad Herrick
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. I feel their target audience is the RCEA and the general public. The writing is on topic for the audience at hand. 2. Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout? The majority of the page is easy to navigate but your description of the graph at the bottom of the page blends in with the links and is very easy to overlook. It may help to put the facts in the blank space to the right of the graph. 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 an appropriate amount of headings used and they are all linked properly. I would not suggest more headings but I feel you could be a bit more specific on some of the headings. For example American cancer society retrofit or Background information on the American cancer society. 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 sentence in your paragraph is not clear. It is a run on sentence that lists the many things the cancer society does. The majority of on line readers skim so I feel it is necessary for you guys to get an attention grabbing opening sentence. Considering the rest of your page is bullets you really need to hook them on the first paragraph. If you just craft a sentence from a few of the terms you had listed like saving lives and eliminating cancer you would have a great 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) I feel you guys stuck to the writing objective very well, you avoided using personal opinions and kept it very technical. 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? I fell you did a nice job on including a graph and three pictures. The only thing I think you should do is move the text from below the graph to the side if possible. 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. Yes they include the figure numbers and they all are described in the text. Also the figures are cited correctly and the links work. 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. No they did not present the predicted money and carbon dioxide emissions save verses the actual money and carbon saved. But they did have a graph of the amount of kilowatt hours used in months. It would be easier to understand your graph if you explained it in text next to it. 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 are clearly presented under 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? The author provides links to two sites and two more threw figure numbers. They have a good amount of links but it might be nice to add one more link to their data. The links are not to technical and each site is clear. There is a list of references but not a 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 a little short I would recommend to add in the comparison between the predicted money and carbon dioxide emissions save verses the actual money and carbon dioxide saved. 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 is at the top of the page and the bottom is labeled correctly with ENGR 115 AND RCEA.
13. List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
Your page is clean and concisely laid out with good pictures and a graph. All of the headings are in proper places and the site is very east to navigate. In addition to this your facts are very relevant to your topic and expressed in a technical manner.
14. List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
I would strongly suggest you to brainstorm an intriguing opening sentence that will lure in readers and keep them attracted to your webpage. Also I think you should add a bit more for the explanation of your graph and put this explanation to the right of your graphic. Lastly all of the RCEA projects need to include the comparison between the predicted money and carbon dioxide emissions save verses the actual money and carbon dioxide saved. This will also help you expand your web page.
15. Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors)
I liked the lay out of the web page a lot it was easy to navigate and well produced. I could tell you guys put in a lot of effort and you are off to a great start and are well on your way to producing a magnificent Appropedia web page.
Nick Meglich'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 target audience for this webpage is anyone interested in what RCEA has done as far as energy retrofits or people who want to learn more about the American Cancer Society.
2. Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout? Yes it is easy to navigate but there is a bunch of information that has been left out.
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 not enough information and there are headings that should be used but there is no information. I think that the retrofit information should be under its own heading instead of a sub heading of background information. You should also have a heading that talks about RCEA and a sub heading that shows all of the savings.
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 background information has a good topic sentence. When you add more information you need to make sure that you have a good opening scentence like you do for you background information 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) It is objective. You guys did a good job with keeping away from opinions. Just make sure with the information you add there is no bias included.
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? You guys have a picture of a plaque that says the name of the business instead of what most groups are doing which is taking a picture of the front of a building. This makes me wonder if the American Cancer Society is inside of a shared building. The pictures could be organized by putting them close to what you are talking about. I don’t think that the picture of the circuit box is necessary. Yes you mention it but RCEA did not improve it and it does not have much to do with the business. Your graph is very hard to read so I suggest making it larger.
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. You do not refer in the text explaining the images. If you were to label them with numbers it would be easier for the reader to know what you are talking about.
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. You have not done this anywhere. You guys need to add a new heading with this information. I would also recommend using more graphs than the one you already have.
9. Are there any questions you have about the topic that are not addressed? Are the sources of the information clearly presented under “References”? You do have a reference section, which is good. When you add more information you can add to your reference section. I have no questions about this. I think that you guys did a good job with this part.
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 two links, one to the RCEA homepage and one to the American Cancer Society homepage. I think that the links work well with the site. There is also a link heading with the two links, which is good.
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 too shout. There are many things missing like more information about the retrofits that RCEA did. You should also add more about how it changed the business. I would also like to see more graphs or tables showing what happened after the retrofits were completed.
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 the categories are there.
13. List the strengths of document You guys did a good job with describing the business and what the American Cancer Society is all about. You also did a good job with the links and the reference section.
14. List areas for improvement You guys need a lot more information. It looks short and incomplete. It would also be nice if you talked about Barbra in the background information.
15. Overall comments There is still a long way to go on this webpage. Make some changes and edit your page.
Marley DeLlamas' 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 target audience appears to be someone with background knowledge of RCEA. Maybe a more in depth description of the actual retrofit process. 2. Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout? The information is fairly easy to navigate but needs to be expanded on. After looking at the RCEA content requirements it seemed like some of the necessary information was not presented. The layout could be improved by turning the question answer part under “Retrofit Information” into separate paragraphs. 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 were successful but there should be more of them. Also level two headings would make the page easier to follow in the “Retrofit Information” paragraph. 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 sentence under “Background Information” is a run-on sentence and needs to be broken up. There isn’t really a topic sentence under “Energy Consumption” only a reference to the graph. 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 was objective; the only opinions were of the clients. 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 easy to understand. More informative captions would improve the photographs though. The energy graph could be plotted in a more clear fashion showing the months for an entire year of the “before retrofit” energy consumption then another graph for the “after retrofit”. 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 figure numbers and the figures could be described more in the text. A discussion of the information on the graph could be included. Sources are cited. 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. There is a graph with the energy use before and after the retrofit, but there is no information presented on the predicted savings in money and carbon dioxide emissions. It would be good to present this information and include a discussion on actual versus predicted savings. 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 have questions about what energy savings actually happened and what the energy predictions were based on calculations. 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 presented could be improved by adding a link explaining the different between incandescent and fluorescent lighting in terms of energy consumption and gas emissions. 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 too short and the missing information mentioned above should be included. 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 both categories are there.
13. List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
The background information is easy to find and the photographs are well placed.
14. List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
Turn Q and A section into level two headings. Include actual energy savings and energy prediction.
15. Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors)
The page itself is easy to follow and is off to a great start. More data and RCEA information is needed.