Hey, great page! Just wanted to let you know that it is in the wrong category. Your page is under the RCEA category, while it should be under the RCEA Energy Audit Reviews category. Just put Category:RCEA_energy_audit_reviews in brackets at the bottom of the page.

-David Bloch



Jimmy Vasquez

1.Who do you feel is the target audience for the writing in this document?

I feel the target audience consists of energy conscious individuals and local residents. That being said, I believe the writing is appropriate for theme.

2.Is the information presented easy to navigate?

All of the information was presented in a very logical manner. From the background, lighting retrofit, and references sections to the size and placement of the graph.

3.Are headings used successfully?

I feel the type of headings used, as well as their placement, are very successful at lending to the overall flow and ease of reading.

4.Is there a clear topic sentence for each paragraph?

All the writing appears to have been done so with the reader in mind. I was able to understand the entire process because of the explanations given.

5.Is the writing objective?

Yes the writing was presented in an objective and professional manner through from the beginning.

6.Is each figure or photograph easy to understand?

I didn’t see an address. Perhaps a map of where I might find Boll Weaver?

7.Does the writer refer to the figure(s) in the text using figure numbers?

I do not feel that reference to the figures is very necessary. There aren’t many pictures and each has a caption as well as being located next to relevant 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?

The bottom line is evident. I would like to have seen a table listing the costs and savings in terms of lbs of CO2 used per month, though. This might make it a little easier to see the numbers.

9.Are there any questions you have about the topic that are not addressed?

I feel the main topics have been addressed fine.

10.Does the author provide links to related sites?

Yes, there are links to related sites- an adequate number.

11.Is the document too long or short?

The document, in my opinion, is a good size.

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 category are listed appropriately.

13.List the strengths of document.

The page has a very nice flow to it. The graph was helpful- I enjoyed the comparison of year one and two within the twelve month period and felt it was the perfect size to add to the page’s symmetry.

14.List areas for improvement.

Perhaps a picture of the store from inside?

15.Overall comments.

Nice job guys!

Jimmy Vasquez

Brianne Reilly Peer Review[edit source]

Brianne Reilly

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 think the target audience would be the general public. I think their writing is appropriate for this audience; they did very well describing all technical terms.

2. Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout?

Their information was easy to navigate, and they described the necessary information well. I cannot think of any way for them to improve their layout.

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.

Their headings are used successfully and I think are specific enough. I wouldn’t suggest adding any more headings.

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.

For the most part each paragraph has a clear topic sentence. I have a couple suggestions; Under the heading “About the Boll Weaver” I think the first two sentences should be combined to one. Also maybe add a topic sentence to the beginning of the “Technical Background” section.

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)

Their writing is very objective; they do not include opinion or biased sentences.

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?

They included a very nice graph, the only suggestion I can make on it is in the legend the year 1 and year 2 is kind of unclear, maybe renaming those something like “before retrofit” and “after retrofit” would be 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.

The graph does not have a figure number and is not referred to in the text. I think they could easily refer to their graph in their “Outcomes” paragraph. The picture does not include a caption, but they mentioned that they are working on labeling their visuals in their memo. I would suggest to them that they add pictures of the retrofits themselves, which they also mentioned that they are working on.

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 include a great graph of the before and after kWh usage, and explained the actual savings vs. the predicted. I would suggest for them to include a chart comparing the RCEA’s data against theirs to help illustrate what they described under; “Outcomes of the Retrofit”.

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 think everything is addressed, the sources are clearly presented, and I really liked that they had the section for related links.

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?

They do have a section designated to related links which is great but they did not include any internal links. I think they should make some RCEA internal links to RCEA’s appropedia page, and under “technical Background” I would make the wisegeek.com an external link.

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 document was a good length, neither too long nor too 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 page does include the banner at the top and the correct category (Engr. 115) at the bottom; however RCEA is not located at the bottom of the page.

13. List the strengths of document

I really liked how they included the square footage of the store, and number of hours on average that the lights were on. Also the technical background section was a great idea. The page has good headings, a good layout, and good information.

14. List areas for improvement

I think this page could improve with including some internal links and possibly some more images with captions. Another thing I noticed was that Ms. Dobbs was never formally introduced anywhere in the page, maybe they could introduce her as the owner in the beginning paragraph.

15. Overall comments

Overall I think they completed a good first draft. In their memo they were aware of some of their outstanding issues, i.e. the graphics and captions so I think they are on the right track!

Jeffrey Novoa Peer Review[edit source]

Jeffrey Novoa

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 appropedia page is towards the class of engineering 115 and basically anyone interested in the retrofit for the company. It explains it thoroughly and even explains some words that a normal citizen might not understand, so I think they really made it clear for all adults to look at and understand the retrofit for Boll Weaver.

2. Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout?

The information is pretty easy to navigate, they start with the information about the business then move on to technical terms that some people might not understand, but do clear the air about them and all the links and references are the bottom with also more information about the light bulbs. I would suggest to maybe incorporating more pictures instead of having them at the top and the bottom put them next to the words so as you read you see what you are reading about. Basically just align the figures and pictures in with 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.

The headings are very useful and very descriptive and detailed. In the background heading you could use maybe smaller headings for the terms such as ballasts and a true color light bulb, maybe to specify and just be more detailed. The headings are in logic order, its starts with the background, then moves on to the retrofits and the outcome.

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 not a clear topic sentence for each paragraph although there are some; there is not one for every paragraph. This paragraph entitled: Did the clients habits change after the retrofits seems very simple, maybe more information on it, I know there really is not that much more you can put, but it seems like a short paragraph with no real topic sentence, just answering the question.

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 really is no bias, they clearly explain the company Boll Weaver in an objective manner saying what they do and explain the outcome of the retrofit very objectively, just stating the facts of how much the company used before the retrofit, after and the outcome compared to the suggested amount 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?

The figure is somewhat confusing, the memo states that the labels on the visuals are not appearing so that might have to do with it, but the retrofit graph is confusing to me. The month system seems weird to have it up to 14 months I understand how they want to put more months but it is still a bit confusing. Also maybe take out the lines behind the graph.

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, I do not believe they have figure numbers. Figure numbers would be needed on the pictures and explains what they are for and what they show. One would especially be needed for the graph.

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 did, they stated in the outcome of the retrofit the estimated time it would take for Boll Weaver to get back the money she spent on the retrofit, but according to their calculations it would take much longer. I believe they should go into more detail about this, because this was the point of the Appropedia page. I think a small explanation of the figure/graph would be helpful to understand exactly what is going on in the graph if someone is lost.

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. The sources are clearly presented at the end with a heading of 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, I think there are enough, there are two links and maybe one more could be added, but they help understanding the whole process and what is going on with the appropedia page and retrofit for Boll Weaver. There is a summary of references which is clear and simple.

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 appropedia page is somewhat short in some aspects, but overall is decent length, the intro and background describes the company and what they did then the outcome of the retrofit, I believe some of the outcome could be more detailed and some of the questions that were asked to the owner of the company.

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.)

Areas of Strength:

• Unbiased perspective and documentation of the retrofit.

• Good introduction explaining the company and technical terms that the average person might not know.

• Excellent related links and references, easy to navigate and find at the end of the page.

• Good explanation of the actual retrofit and what Boll Weaver did to change the light bulbs.

• Great Descriptive Headings.

14. List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)

I believe the areas of improvement are:

• Add Figure Numbers to graph and the picture on the Appropedia page.

• Take out the lines on the graph.

• Add more to the outcome of the retrofit.

• Incorporate the pictures or add more and apply to wrap around to the text so the pictures and graphs are not just at the beginning and the end of the page.

• Adding heading to the technical terms for each term explained.

15. Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors)

Excellent page, minor errors and movement of pictures and graph. Possibly explain more on the outcome and add a few headings. Some grammatical errors as well.


Peer Edit 4[edit source]

Adam Webster

1. Who do you feel is the target audience for the writing in this document?

The target audience is a professional in the engineering field. The tone of the text is formal, concise, and direct.

2. Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout?

The page is easy to read except the “Outcome of the Retrofits” section. There are too many numbers mixed with letters for this to be easily read. I suggest separating the data into bullet points or a table.

3. Are headings used successfully? Are enough headings used?

The headings make it easy to navigate the main sections and sub sections of the page. Unless you add more do not change the heading setup.

4. Is there a clear topic sentence for each paragraph? Do all following sentences relate to that topic sentence?

Each paragraph has a clear topic sentence and the whole paragraph relates to this topic.

5. Is the writing objective?

The writing does not appear biased or objective at all. Everything on the page is fact.

6. Is each figure or photograph easy to understand? How could the figures be improved?

The graph is a little confusing. In the key it would help if instead of “year 1” it said “before retrofit” and “after retrofit” for “year 2” It wasn’t until I saw the hover caption that I understood this part.

7. Does the writer refer to the figure(s) in the text using figure numbers?

The text does not refer to the picture. But the graph has a very helpful caption.

8. 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?

The money, carbon dioxide, and energy saved are all presented. However it is difficult to read. If it were in a table or bullet point form the “Outcome of the Retrofits” section would be much easier to understand. There is no mention of the carbon dioxide or energy estimates made by RCEA prior to retrofitting.

9. Are there any questions you have about the topic that are not addressed? Are the sources of the information clearly presented under “References”?

Yes the sources are clearly presented under the “References” section.

10. Does the author provide links to related sites? Are there enough or too many?

The links provided were helpful in clarifying what the Kelvin Color Scale was.

11. Is the document too long or short?

The document is not too short, nor too long.

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?

It has the ENGR 115 category but no RCEA category.

13. List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) The article is very thorough. It has a formal tone appropriate for a professional website, and the organization of headings is easy to follow.

14. List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) A few times throughout the article lighting was spelled “lightning”. The graph is confusing at first, I suggest changing the key to “Before and After” instead of “Year 1 and Year 2”

15. Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors) The information presented is easy to understand and has appropriate word choice for the target audience.