Chris Defoney's peer edit[edit source]

Name of Editor: Chris DeFoney Contact Information: cd102@humboldt.edu Names of Writers: Nick Meglich & Sean Matteson

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 target audience for the writing in this document is the RCEA and the concerned public.

2. Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout? Yes the web site is laid out nicely and it is easy to navigate and find information. I would improve the layout by making the graph smaller and the photo larger I may even add some more photographs if possible.

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 properly and are in logical order but I might just be more descriptive. They should include a reference heading and add their title in some of the 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. There is a clear topic sentence in both paragraphs and the paragraphs both relate to the topic sentence. In the second paragraph topic sentence I think it would be effective if it was stated how the RCEA did the retrofit for free.

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 authors did a great job staying technical with their writing objectives. They avoided using their own personal opinion and being bias.

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 photograph is almost too small to make out the store, let alone see the light fixtures another photo would improve the webpage dramatically. The graph is very easy to read and you guys do a good job describing it in the paragraph above it.

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 there is no figure numbers in the text. You guys should include at least two figure numbers in your paragraphs.

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 group did clearly state the amount of money saved per month in a graph but they did not provide the amount of carbon dioxide emissions saved. It may be easier for readers to understand if you give the amount they were spending before retrofit or a table with both this and the amount of carbon dioxide before and after 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”? Where is your reference heading? You guys need to list your references under another heading called 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 there are two links and the both work but there needs to be more links. I feel if you guys add your references and figure numbers there will be plenty of links.

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? This document is a little short right now but I feel if you guy add some more information about the money and carbon dioxide used before and after the retrofit you will be right on track for a two and a half page project.

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 web page has both the ENGR 115 banner at the top and ENGR 155 and RCEA category at the bottom.

13. List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)

I feel that your web page is laid out very well and it is easy to get around. I like how you listed the interview questions and answers this really got to the point of the web page. Also the graph is direct and to the point and it does a great job expressing money saved from the retrofit.

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

Some of the things that need to be improved are your lack of links for your references and in text figure numbers. Also to improve your layout you can enlarge your picture and make the graph smaller. Lastly you can make your web page longer if you add more about the amount of money and carbon dioxide to your second paragraph.

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

Overall I feel like you guys are off to a great start on a well developed web page. I really like the layout with the graph and how you guys included the questions and answers on the page. Keep up the good work.

Monica's Comments[edit source]

Name of Editor: Monica Napoles Contact Information: mgn8@humboldt.edu Names of Writers: Nick Meglich and Sean Matteson

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 target audience for the document is collage students and adults. The writing is appropriate for the audience, however, some minor grammar errors decrease the document’s formality. 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 navigate and understand. To improve the layout, consider moving the picture of Booklegger to the right of the background 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. The headings are used successfully and enough headings are used. The headings may be renamed to be more specific. Some suggestions may be “Booklegger Background Information” “RCEA changes to Booklegger” and “Retrofit Details and Booklegger satisfaction” for the three topics. Perhaps “Retrofit Information” can be have subheadings of “Retrofit Details” and “Booklegger Satisfaction” 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 are clear topic sentences for each paragraph and all of the sentences follow the topic. In “Background Information” consider including more Booklegger history before diving into the retrofit information right away since it is discussed again in “what did RCEA do?” 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 lacking some objectivity. Comb the document for adjectives and adverbs to elimate. The statement “you can clearly see…” should be reworded. Avoid speaking to the audience directly. Since Booklegger was in favorable opinion of RCEA, bias is expected from the business but make sure to state that all opinions expressed in “Retrofit analysis” are of the business. (Perhaps make this clarification the topic sentence) Also, the business is spoken of in the past tense which should be avoided since Booklegger is still open. 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 picture is easy to understand. The graph could be improved by labeling the two lines (red and blue). A picture of a retrofit light versus an old bookstore light would be an asset in the “retrofit information” section to make the information clearer. 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 using figure numbers. The graph is well described in text however the sources are not cited. The figures do not have captions but captions are recommended. To better incorporate the figures, include more. 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 money saved was clearly presented however the carbon dioxide emissions saved were never mentioned in the document. A graph of this would be beneficial. The importance of the energy/money saved may be explained in more detail. 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 not presented under references however the links section ( I think) is where your information was found.

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? Links to related sites are provided and there are enough of them. They are appropriate for the audience. The relevance of each site is clear. There is no reference section, nor a summary of the references which is recommended. 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 the correct length however more information on the importance of the saved energy and of the saved carbon dioxide emissions could be added. 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 contains both the in-progress banner and the ENGR 115 and RCEA categories.

13.List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) The document presents the RCEA process and actions very well as well as giving a good picture of the opinions of Booklegger.

14.List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) Include more information on the carbon dioxide emissions saved as well as the importance and meaning of the energy saved by the business. The current graph only needs minor adjustments. Consider improving grammar and punctuation details to increase the document’s formality.

Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors) Some more information is needed but the page has a very personal feel.

Rebecca Ransom's Peer edit[edit source]

1.The target audience is the RCEA and Booklegger. I guess it reaches that audience, although the information presented is choppy.

2.It is OK to navigate.The sections after the graph could be approached in a different way that was easier for the reader to understand. All the questions could be answered in series of paragraphs as opposed to interview style.

3.The headings are OK.They need some improvement, so that they are more descriptive and on point.

4.No there are not clear topic sentences in the last part because there are just questions and answers. I would suggest rewording the questions as part of the paragraphs that answer the questions

5.The writing is objective.

6.The graph is not descriptive, and just has two lines that are not labeled as to which year they are referring too.

7.No figure numbers to refer to

8.The bottom line is not discussed at all, and definitely needs to be.

9.

10.The links are OK, considering Booklegger doesn’t have a website to link to.

11.The document is too short, and definitely needs some more descriptions. It seemed like the question and answer section was an attempt to lengthen the page.

12.Yes

13.The strengths are the introduction.

14.Lots of areas of improvement including writing style in the intro.

15. Looking forward to the finished page.

Brit Abney's Peer Edits[edit source]

Name of Editor: Brit Abney Contact Information: bea14@humboldt.edu Names of Writers: Nick Meglich and Sean Matteson

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 article seems to be directed at all potential readers. This page will most likely only be viewed by those interested in the environment and energy conservation so I think the writing is a bit too simple and broad in its phrasing and topics. Less information about non-energy related problems and more data would be beneficial in my opinion. 2. Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout? There is an existing graph but its labeling is minimal. Also the data is scattered amongst long paragraphs making it difficult for the reader to locate important information. More labels on the graph, possible diagrams, and tabulating the data would make it easier for the reader to find out what they’re looking for. 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 specifically target optional questions suggested by the moodle page previous to this project. This results in many small paragraphs, to specifically labeled. Summing up more information into larger paragraphs and less headings would be more efficient. Also headings that are created by the author instead of one’s addressing the exact questions posted. Remember the readers haven’t seen those example questions and therefore don’t see their relevance. 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 in the first two paragraphs could be stronger relative to the text that follows them. Also once the headings have been changed and address broader topics there will be new topic sentences needed to address the new text that follows it. 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 appears accurate to me, but that’s because I am educated in what RCEA does. The average reader doesn’t have that knowledge and should have more evidence to back up certain statements. “This new lighting would be better for the environment and more cost friendly” this sentence for example. What does better for the environment mean? Or cost friendly? These are opinions. Express your opinion with hard evidence and let the reader decide how to feel or think. If your evidence backs up your opinion then you shouldn’t have to worry about your readers being led to the correct conclusion. 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 page really only has the graph which the writers have mentioned isn’t finished yet. It still lacks diagrams, photographs, refinement on the graph, and tabulated data. In addition, text to back up each of these as the graph has been partly explained in the paragraph above it. These will make it much clearer to the reader what exactly is being proven. 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. As stated above the page does not yet have any figures save the graph that still needs editing and labeling. So no, the writer has not yet referred to any diagrams, numbers, or figures. 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 only one writer presented at the bottom. The data does exist in both text and graphical evidence but it takes some jumping around to find it and compare it. A table comparing expected results and actual results would make it a lot easier to take in the needed information as a reader. Also once the graph has been improved it will be easier to compare as well. 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 page doesn’t address how much the new lights save on a yearly basis, doesn’t have numbers regarding how long it will take the retrofits to pay for themselves, doesn’t mention how much energy it will save in kWh/yr, or a comparison of expected data to actual data. These are all things I would be interested in knowing. 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 do provide links but the links are not in the text itself which would be helpful instead of at the very end. Also they only have two. Though they did mention in their memo that they couldn’t think of other related sites. I might recommend that they have the site of the electricity company that installed the retrofits as an example. 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 still needs figures, tabulated data, more data, more questions answered, and title refinement. So currently I believe it is too short but once these (along with related) refinements have been made, it will most likely be of adequate 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? The page does indeed have the warning banner at the top and has the correct categories. No refinement required here.

13. List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)

This document has a lot of potential, the writers seem to know a lot about the benefits of the lights and the company itself. Also their meetings seemed to give them an abundance of needed information which once added to graphs, diagrams, and tabulated data, will be very useful on their page. The page looks clean and organized as well as attractive to the average reader.

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

This page will be much improved when the data is better represented. Certain numbers still need to be added, tabulated, and represented in the hopefully labeled graph and diagrams. Also a picture is needed on the page of the company or the lights within the company or both. Plus the headings should address different and more broad topics. Also some editing needed in the objectiveness of the phrasing. Let facts and evidence replace bias and opinion.

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

This page has a lot of potential and all of the necessary pieces to be a successful one. If some easy edits are made, data is presented in better format, and a few more numbers added this page will be great. Keep working at it, great start.