Ryan Noone[edit source]
The "(or higher quality that yours)" has a typo. in the sentence "The bulbs from RCEA cost $957.85 and for around a hundred dollars was installed by Brant electric" you should either stick with spelling out the numbers or not, and instead of using "was", "were" seems more appropriate. In the predicted saving vs. actual savings chart, the "row 3, cell 2" should probably have a value instead.
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. Yes, they are targeting the right audience by having the information clearly understandable and discussed in an easily comprehendible way.
2. Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout? The payout provided is clear and defined by its sections and graphs.
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 a little clustered, but contain enough information to be a complete considered a complete tab.
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 appropriate, and all other sentences relate well to the topic sentence, although specific phrasing in sentences is sometimes a little hard to understand.
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, their phrasing is very objective and professional.
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 figures and graphs are a little hard to understand, but with improvement will be vary helpful.
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 use references to figures in their graphs, but this is not very clearly expressed, and is not easily understandable.
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. Yes they do, and it is compared well, but some information should be expressed more clearly.
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 there are not, and no there are not any refrences.
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 not many links but the ones the page offers are important and valuable ones.
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 seems to be an appropriate length.
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, all of the above are present on the page.
13. List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
Clear and easy on the reader, and is very informative.
14. List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) Once simple things are cleaned up their page will be very much improved.
15. Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors) Good charts, graphs, and information throughout the page. Overall very good thus far.
by: Ryan Noone
JuliaA Peer Review[edit source]
Name of Editor: Julia Allshouse Contact Information: jla65@humboldt.edu Names of Writers:
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 seems to be targeted towards anyone interested in energy efficiency, but I feel like it lacks a professional tone in the first paragraph.
2.Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout?
Yes the layout is easy to navigate through.
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 feel that Predictions and Collected Data should be split into two different headings. You probably don't need a header under graph data or maybe use a level two 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.
Yes there is clear topic sentence in every 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 mostly objective with exception to the first paragraph (noted above #1).
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 understand the first 2 photographs but I am confused about the third photograph, a caption would be nice.
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 captions on any of the pictures, so added those would make the readers less confused.
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.
Yes the table and graph are clear.
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 are no questions, but then again there are no 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?
There are two links on the webpage, which are relevant to the topic, but again there are no references at the bottom.
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 article is at a reasonable length.
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 both.
13.List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) There is a lot of information on this page but it is laid out clearly, and easy to read and comprehend.
14.List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) Your first sentence starts the page off on a bad foot, "Arcata Used Tire and Wheel is a company that is fairly self explanatory." I've never been there so tell me what the business is all about, thats the point of the page. Also it's better to use inexpensive instead of cheap it makes it sound like they are selling crappy products. Also I don't know who Mr. Vagle is under "Future Retrofits" I am guessing it is the owner but you might want to specify. Under "Habit Changes" you start to use AUTW instead of Arcata Used Tire and Wheel, which is fine except you should probably state that the first time you use the name of the company instead of the end of the page.
User:JuliaA/Peer review
Charis 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 in my opinion for this document would be the RCEA or people researching RCEA retrofits and people affiliated with Arcata Used Tire and Wheel.
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 pretty easy to navigate information listed under headings is relevant, the graphs are pretty clear so I would say the information presented is pretty easy to navigate.
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, information posted under headings are relevent to the topic being discussed.
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 paragraph, and all information relates to the topic it is under. The first paragraph coul use some more technical terms but other than the paragraphs are pretty well put together.
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 writing’s objective and unbiased.
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, I found the graph easy to read
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.
Figures are referred to in, each figure is well used in the text however sources are not cited. I think in the graph the months should be named instead of put in numbers, however the graph is pretty simple to read and seems well thought out.
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.
Yes, predicted money and carbon dioxide emissions saved versus actual money and carbon dioxide emissions saved are clearly showed in a table. I do suggest that the writers make the table a little bigger and perhaps place it in a more visible place.
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 references were cited in 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 links are made to relevant sites.
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 page is an appropriate length. I cannot think of anything that still needs to be addressed
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 does have the “ENGR 115: In Progress” banner and it does have the correct categories at the end of the page as well.
13.List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
The writer’s are unbiased and write objectively I also really like the graph.
14.List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) References could be sited, and the table made a little more visible, but other than that everything seems to be fine
15. Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors) I think overall the writer’s did a very good job of putting together the page.
Janoah'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.
I believe the target audience for this page is an average person surfing the web. RCEA is not specified so perhaps the audience is expected to know the company. I would recommend defining RCEA.
2. Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout?
The information presented is easy to read. The order in which the information presented makes the information flow. However, I recommend making the graph smaller. It dominates the page too much.
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. The headings appropriately specify the content within the headings. The document might be easier to follow if you create level two headings when you add more information. The heading Graph Data, could be a level two heading for the Predictions and Collected Data 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.
The Habit Changes paragraph needs a topic sentence rather than instantly diving into the actual changes of habits. Also, I feel that the first paragraph of the website under the Company Background heading should be re-written with a more informative approach. Avoid using the words ‘yours’, ‘you’, and ‘our’.
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 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?
I understand the pictures were uploaded the day before. Nonetheless captions need to be applied to each picture. The graph could be improved by showing when the retrofit was completed on the graph. Also, I think a connected line graph would present the information slightly clearer than showing X’s, triangles, squares, and diamonds.
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 graph and table need figure numbers in their captions. Yes, each figure is described 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.
Yes, the writers have presented their comparisons in a table. The CO2 emissions still need to be calculated as I was informed in their memo. Perhaps make the table slightly more detailed. The predicted money savings are not specified to a year.
9. Are there any questions you have about the topic that are not addressed? Are the sources of the information clearly presented under “References”?
When were the retrofits completed? You write, “the light bulbs in the first year after installation actually exceed expectations.” However you do not specify when the retrofit was completed and thus the reader cannot make a before-and-after comparison on the graph. No, there are no sources of information 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?
Yes. The authors provide two links to related sites, one to their companies’ site, and the other to RCEA’s webpage. Both links are very relevant to the site and technical enough for the reader. 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?
The document is too short. I believe the writers addressed every issue however they could delve a little more in-depth on the analysis of the data collection. Perhaps add the actually repayment time of the retrofit.
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 correct banner on the top and category at the end of the page.
13. List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
The page looks professional and has a good amount of pictures. Good Headings. The page flows very nicely. Good navigation
14. List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
The first paragraph needs to be re-written as I addressed in question 4. The sentence, “The company replaces your worn out tires and wheels with used tires and wheels (or higher quality that yours) for a much cheaper price than say Firestone may charge to give you brand new tires” is very awkward and needs to be re-written.
You need more under Graph Data. There are only two sentences describing or relating to the graph. Try to talk the reader through the graph a little more. Be specific to which part of the graph you are referring to, for example which year or shape on the graph.
You need to create a separate heading for the graph and the graph data. The information given under Graph Data heading is referring to a graph in another heading. The headings should be separate subjects. Perhaps, ‘RCEA Estimations’ and ‘Collected Data’. If you do not want to do that then you could use a sub heading for Graph Data.
The topic sentence under Reasons for Involvement is awkward and needs to be rewritten. “Hearing that these bulbs would eventually profit the company, use less energy, and help the environment it was an easy decision for Joe Vagle to make being both environmentally and business conscious.” The bulbs are profiting the company by using less energy. Also try to stay away from being vague. Instead of saying, “and help the environment,” say, “and reduces CO2 emissions.”
The bottom picture of the warehouse lights is very dark. Is there a way to get a brighter picture?
15. Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors)
This webpage has a great layout and great headings. I believe the authors need to state their data a little more clearly but overall it is a good webpage. Good job.
Notes[edit source]
1) Yes, they are targeting the right audience by having the information clearly understandable and discussed in an easily comprehendible way.
This seems to be targeted towards anyone interested in energy efficiency, but I feel like it lacks a professional tone in the first paragraph.
The target audience in my opinion for this document would be the RCEA or people researching RCEA retrofits and people affiliated with Arcata Used Tire and Wheel.
2)
The payout provided is clear and defined by its sections and graphs.
Yes the layout is easy to navigate through.
Yes the page is pretty easy to navigate information listed under headings is relevant, the graphs are pretty clear so I would say the information presented is pretty easy to navigate.
3)
The headings are a little clustered, but contain enough information to be a complete considered a complete tab.
I feel that Predictions and Collected Data should be split into two different headings. You probably don't need a header under graph data or maybe use a level two heading.
Yes the headings are used successfully, information posted under headings are relevent to the topic being discussed.
4)
The topic sentences are appropriate, and all other sentences relate well to the topic sentence, although specific phrasing in sentences is sometimes a little hard to understand.
Yes there is clear topic sentence in every paragraph.
5) Yes, their phrasing is very objective and professional.
The writing is mostly objective with exception to the first paragraph (noted above #1).
6) The figures and graphs are a little hard to understand, but with improvement will be vary helpful.
I understand the first 2 photographs but I am confused about the third photograph, a caption would be nice.
7) Yes they use references to figures in their graphs, but this is not very clearly expressed, and is not easily understandable.
There are no captions on any of the pictures, so added those would make the readers less confused.
8)
Yes they do, and it is compared well, but some information should be expressed more clearly.
Yes the table and graph are clear.
9)
No there are not, and no there are not any refrences.
There are no questions, but then again there are no references.
10)
There are not many links but the ones the page offers are important and valuable ones.
There are two links on the webpage, which are relevant to the topic, but again there are no references at the bottom.
11)
The page seems to be an appropriate length.
The article is at a reasonable length.
12)
Yes, all of the above are present on the page.
Yes, it has both.
13)
Clear and easy on the reader, and is very informative.
here is a lot of information on this page but it is laid out clearly, and easy to read and comprehend.
14)
Once simple things are cleaned up their page will be very much improved.
Your first sentence starts the page off on a bad foot, "Arcata Used Tire and Wheel is a company that is fairly self explanatory." I've never been there so tell me what the business is all about, thats the point of the page. Also it's better to use inexpensive instead of cheap it makes it sound like they are selling crappy products. Also I don't know who Mr. Vagle is under "Future Retrofits" I am guessing it is the owner but you might want to specify. Under "Habit Changes" you start to use AUTW instead of Arcata Used Tire and Wheel, which is fine except you should probably state that the first time you use the name of the company instead of the end of the page.
15)
Good charts, graphs, and information throughout the page. Overall very good thus far.