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 is anyone who is looking for proof that lighting retrofits work.
2. Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout? The information is presented nicely and information was easy to find.
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 used successfully. Enough are used and specific enough. Some of the information needs to be tied back into the main idea.
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, I believe that a clear topic sentence is used and following sentences relate to that 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 don’t believe that the writing is objective at all.
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? On the graph you should put the arrows pointing towards the data point.
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 are not referred to in the text. The figures do have captions. You can describe the data and the graph in the text.
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 information on the retrofits and what they are supposed to save. There is no information on predicted versus actual money and CO2 was saved. Make a calculations header and put all the calculations for KWh, CO2 offset, and money saved there.
9. Are there any questions you have about the topic that are not addressed? Are the sources of the information clearly presented under “References”? What are some of the materials that the ACRC recycle? You have plenty sources 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? I feel that your links satisfy each question asked.
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? If it should be 2-3 pages, I think that it may be a little short
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 ENGR 115 banner is there and the categories are located at the bottom of the page.
13. List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) The document is very well written and provides lots of information on the retrofits done to ACRC. The page is well organized and looks good.
14. List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) The data table is missing data and the right side of the table should be switched with the left side because the right side starts with 2006 data then moves left.
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. Students and people looking to do an energy retrofit on a business. 2. Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout? Yes the information is easy to navigate. I would make sure that your data does not become too clustered because it would become harder to understand. 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 all used effectively. 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 the paragraphs. 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) For the most part the writing is objective. Some small corrections but nothing too big. 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 photos and figures are easily understood. 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 are cited and have captions. 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. The page has very useful graphs and tables showing the energy use decline. 9. Are there any questions you have about the topic that are not addressed? Are the sources of the information clearly presented under “References”? No 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 authors did provide links to related sites, maybe there could be more links to sites which can help the reader find more information. 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 is the right length maybe more. 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 page is very detail oriented and contains useful information
14. List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
The page could use more organization, you might try making headers for each of the buildings and explain their retrofits or future. Make a clear summary about energy savings. 15. Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors) Overall this page is very effective.
CONTACT INFO: jjp40@humboldt.edu Jeff Palumbo
Name of Editor: Sean Matteson Contact Information: sdm53@humboldt.edu Names of Writers: Shane Mallory, Enrique Diaz
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 felt the main audience for this document would be anyone interested in the how the RCEA can help to lower costs in energy. The audience was targeted very well in my opinion. Did not seem to be done for the assignments sake, but for the actual information to be provided.
2. Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout? The information was very easy to navigate and well labeled. The links at the top gave a clear and concise overview of what the page would be discussing.
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 were done clearly however I felt like some were unnecessary for example the info on the cat I thought was not needed as a heading.
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. I don’t think there was many topic sentences per say but the headings made up for that. The topic might get redundant if there was both a heading and a 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 found no subjective material throughout the page. All the information was simply presented as it is.
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 pictures were done very well with the exception of the graph it was slightly difficult to read. If it is possible to resize I would recommend that. I might also suggest a graph of the money saved to give a clear picture of the savings.
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. Not all the figures have captions but were described with text however it might not hurt to add captions. No figure numbers were used that I could see.
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. The carbon dioxide emissions were not included in the page. The money being saved was presented however a graph of future savings would be helpful.
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 references were presented very clearly.
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? I did not see a summary of the references which could be added especially describing the interview more in depth. Also one of your references is repeated.
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 was a sufficient length about two and a half pages.
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 the appropriate banners and categories.
13. List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) I would say your biggest strength would be your organization and quality of information. I seemed well researched and thought about.
14. List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) Minor improvements could be made as far as pictures and graphs.
15. Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors) Overall I felt this page was well put together and thought about.
Joshua Rodriguez[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 target audience are people that are researching into the Arcata Recycling Center and getting background information on the topic.
2.Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout?
The information presented was easy to navigate, but the level two headings didn’t seem to really stick out and catch my attention for the information.
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.
Yes the headings are used successfully and that there plenty of headings in this page. All headings are specific enough to give you an idea of what you’re going to read. The headings are close to being in logical order, I think that the “services provided” should be before “Important upcoming Changes.”
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.
No there isn’t a clear topic sentence for each paragraph because most of the information presented are in bulleted form rather than paragraph form.
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 was a bias opinion about the lighting by Mark Loughmiller who recommended other business’s to take the advantage of the grants for the low energy consumption.
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 top two photographs were easily understood by the description that was given on the bottom of the picture. Whereas the last picture at the bottom had no description of what it was suppose to be, except that it was somewhat mentioned below the heading of “Background info on Riley.” I suggest that you show some of the lights being used to give us an idea of what they’re using.
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 the writer refers to the figure(s) in the text by using figure numbers, which are all cited. All figures have brief descriptions except for the one in the bottom, I suggest you put a brief caption of what the picture entails.
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 didn’t show predicted money and carbon dioxide emissions saved versus actual money and carbon dioxide emissions saved table or 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”?
The sources are clearly presented under the references section of the document.
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 two provided links to the related sites, which I think there could be a little bit more to the document. The links are technical enough and show the relevance to each site. Up on the top of the page, there is a summary of references listed.
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?
No the document length is just right.
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 does have the “ENGR 115: In Progress” banner as well as the correct categories at the end of the page.
13.List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) • Plenty of information • Good pictures • Level two headings are helpful to the main heading
14.List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) • Bulleted information • The use of figure numbers referring to the pictures
15.Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors) • I didn’t see the overall relevance of this person named, “Riley.” If you care to explain the importance of the background info on Riley, then keep it, otherwise I think you should take it out.