Get our free book (in Spanish or English) on rainwater now - To Catch the Rain.

Talk:RCEA energy audit reviews/Coast Central Credit Union

From Appropedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Where's the Beef?

How much was the inital investment?
When will monthly savings pay back the investment.
What is the replacement timetable for these lights.
Please define the nature of this light. What is the spectrum?
Were the light fixtures replaced or just the lightbulbs?
How long did instalation take? How many people did it take?
Was there "free" grant money used from some source? or are the credit union members paying the bill. If there is an anual savings, how will this mony be used?
Why was this bank chosen?
How were the old fixtures diposed of?
Are there any downsides to this? Any waiste or polution?
What is the cost of this study, in man hours, and money?
What is the primary goal of this project? What is secondary?

Jessica Bruce's Review

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 is the general public. The webpage could use some more explaining when it comes to the calculations involved in the retrofit analysis, because they are confusing to the reader.

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

The information would be easier to navigate if the titles were a little more specific. I do like that they have their chart next to the graph, it is a nice comparison of data.

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 in the document, but the headings should not all be the same size. I would suggest putting a heading for the name of the company before jumping into the information. I would also suggest changing the names to the headings to be more formal and specific. For example, the heading “What do they do?,” could be changed to, “Who is the Coastal Credit Union?”. The questions from the PowerPoint should be made into bullet points or summarized into paragraphs.

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.

This webpage did not really have paragraphs; it mostly consisted of two-three sentences under each question. One of the topic sentences has an exclamation point which is not proper English. My suggestion is to put the questions together and make one big paragraph that expands on the topic a little more. Under the heading “How do they like it?” explain who the person Gerry Lewis is. The sentence after the quote needs to have the first letter capitalized or made into one sentence, because it does not make a complete sentence as is. Under the heading “Can you see the difference?” you should capitalize the company name and fix the last sentence, it is confusing which August you are referring to.

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, I did not see many opinion statements in the page, but the page was mostly values from the calculations. There should be more background information on the business.

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 could improve by incorporating a picture from the Coastal Credit Union, which the author is referring to. I did not see which Coastal Credit Union had the retrofit done, because there are several in the county. I like the table, but the table would be more beneficial by adding data before the retrofit was done to show before and after comparisons of data. The graph is confusing, pick either the changes in kWh or the monthly energy bill, both ultimately represent the same analysis and are just separated by the cost rate. The y-axis label needs to be put in the right units either kWh (not KWH only the W in Watts gets capitalized) or dollars if you pick to show the monthly billing charges. The x- axis label needs to be centered and under the date values. I would suggest placing an arrow to the day of the retrofit or by displaying the actual date on the graph to be clearer on when the retrofit took place. A picture of the bank inside showing the lights would help the reader match the text with the pictures.

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 do not have figure numbers, captions, and are not described in the text. The graphic next to the retrofit heading is shown under the heading links, but still needs to be cited underneath the picture.

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 writers have identified both the bottom line savings of the money saved each year and each month, but the carbon dioxide emissions saved are not properly labeled, making the reader confused on the time span of savings in CO2 emissions. I would suggest putting the predicted values from RCEA and the actual values of both the savings in money and carbon dioxide emissions saved.

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 sites that are referenced under the heading links are not cited in the text. To represent this more clearly use the reference command in the paragraphs where you are using the information from each site.

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 would also recommend more links, possibly one about the lights that were installed. The first topic on the webpage under heading, “What do they do?”, sounds like a mission statement, make sure to cite that sentence if it is.


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, more information could be added from the questions given in class. Be more specific on the numbers that are being used in the document and what those numbers represent. Also you use RCEA as one reference, add a paragraph on who they are and what they do for their community. You could also increase the size of your document by adding some pictures of the retrofits that have been 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 document has both the banner and the correct categories in the appropriate places.


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

The document currently has strengths in how they choose to evaluate the difference in the energy usage before and after by coming up with a combined total of saved kWh/year.


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

I think the group has got a nice start with the webpage, but could use some more information about the particular business. Be more specific on what happened during the retrofit and how the habits of the business have changed to exceed RCEA’s predictions on the annual savings. Also you should add what RCEA’s predictions were on the retrofit savings.


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

Nice start just needs more detail!

Jessica Bruce's Review

By Jessica Bruce[edit]

Review By Sabre Ethridge

Name of Editor:Sabre Ethridge
Contact Information: sre21@humboldt.edu
Names of Writers: Jeff Nova and Adam Webster/ Coast Central Credit Union
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 website would be someone looking to do a project with the RCEA. For this audience the website is very effective, because the authors explain the energy/money saving aspect as the main topic. It could use more detail in the department of what the RCEA retrofits were.


Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout?
The site is easy to navigate, however the visual aids and graphic are to close together and can make it hard to read the text.

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 useful and provide a good summery of the topics discussed. One heading that you might consider adding to the website would be a specific “Coast Central Credit Union” heading, near the top.

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.
Most paragraphs have good topic sentences, however the could use more information following the topic sentences. I would suggest adding more information to your “What do they do?” and “Retrofits.” paragraphs to give the reader a greater understanding of what happened.

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 website avoids being blatantly bias.

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 visual aids were helpful, however they are to close together and it crowds the webpage. One visual aid that could use some improvement is the graph showing the energy data. The graph could be greatly improved by adding labels and referring to it in the text.

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.
Adding some references to both the graph and the table would greatly improve the navigation of this site.
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.
In this website the money and carbon dioxide saving are both clearly presented to the reader, and they are easy to find in the “Can you see the difference?” section.

Are there any questions you have about the topic that are not addressed? Are the sources of the information clearly presented under “References”?
What kind of lights did they install that saved so much money.

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 only links I could find are at the bottom of the website. I think the website could improve by adding links within the text.

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 website is a good length, however it could stand to have more detail in most of the sections.

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 all of these.


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

The basic information is of the RCEA retrofit is easy to access. The graph is a strong visual aid, especially when used with the table. The CO2 saving is explained very well.


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

The visual aids are overwhelming the way they are now, spacing the visual aids could solve the problem, also choosing the graphics wisely could help clear the page up. Depth could be added to the “What do they do?” and “Retrofits” sections.


Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors)

A very good first draft. Not much needs to be done in-order to make this a accomplished webpage.

--User:Jacobmoore Name of Editor: Jacob Moore Contact Information: jtm44@humboldt.edu 707 547 7977 Names of Writers: Jeff Nova and Adam Webster

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 that the target audience for this webpage is the general public who are interested in RCEA and appropriate technology. People interested in CO2 emissions and saving money understand the information.

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

The information is easy to navigate being short and sweet, and the information is found quickly. The one lined sentences could be changed by moving the table higher up on the page.

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 are enough headings used. I would however change the retrofit and actual savings to heading level one, and questions, energy, CO2 saved, and money saved to 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. Some of the paragraphs are one sentence. The energy paragraph could use 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)

Most of the writing is objective, except the first sentence could be changed.

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 feel that the date of retrofit could be better labeled on the table and graph. The dark background on the table makes it harder 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.

There could be most figures for aesthetic purposes.

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, I have not clearly understood what RCEA’s projections were. Although I know I was a considerable large savings. Maybe a projected savings table and actual savings table.

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 I don’t see clearly listed information under any references tab.

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 to sites that could possibly be helpful to further understand the retrofit.

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 would say this document may be too short. There could be more explanation for the “average person”. More information about the retrofit itself would be helpful.

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 banners and page categories are correct.


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

The document is to the point and gets the point across to the viewer.


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

More explanation of what was done physically to save to energy. Labeling the date of retrofit on the graph and table would be informative.

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

Overall short and sweet, worth reading and wow what a savings --User:Jacobmoore

Alex Hiebert's Peer Review[edit]

Alex Hiebert


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 like the target audience is RCEA or people interested in energy savings. I think the writing style is appropriate. Once thing to think about is some of the headings are confusing because the main headings are in normal text and sub-topics are in bold.

2. Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout? I think the information is a bit un-organized. It is all bunched together and brief. I don’t know who the heading are addressed to. (ex. Can you see the difference?) I would Change the size of heading to tell the reader what kind of information is in each paragraph. 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 would change the headings from questions to Statements and then in the body address the questions. It seems pretty confusing like a stated in the previous box. Changing levels of the headings and using “bold” properly will help a lot.

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 is not a clear topic sentence in each paragraph. In some cases only a single sentence with a quote. Expanding on each paragraph will give the reader a better sense of direction. Having a question as the heading and then a single sentence is tough to get anything out of 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) It seems as there is no bias and you have limited the adjectives/adverbs.

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 graph is good. I would suggest a more specific title and to edit the legend to read it better and maybe add some photos of your business.

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 graphs and tables are not referred to in the writing and there are no captions for any of the figures. Adding captions describing the graph/table will make it easier to understand. Also I would suggest expanding on the graphs in the writing.

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 have clearly presented the bottom line. I think that is a strong point of the page. That section has clear information and good headings. I would only suggest adding captions and fixing the bold from level one and level two headings.

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 are your sources?

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 they provided links to their business webpage as well as RCEA’s webpage. They work well with page giving a reader a chance to see who this page is about.

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 believe the document is too short. It is only about one page. Maybe address if the client is thinking about future retrofits, motives for working with RCEA etc. 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? Both are on the page.



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

The strengths include • Quality links • To the point information which is needed in some cases • Graph




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


Areas for improvement include • Expanding on ideas (need more content) • Fixing the levels of the headers (bold, size etc.) • Improving organization • Spreading out paragraphs to understand easier • Add some photos • Make it more appealing to the eye

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

I can see what you were saying about having trouble speaking with your business in depth. If you are having trouble filling the page with content because they won’t give it to you then you can at least add some photos showing the retrofitted lights and the store front itself just to give the reader a physical thing to look at to better understand what is happening. The graph and table I think are positioned perfect maybe make the title of the graph more specific and for the table, it is good information to have on the page but it would be difficult to figure out what it meant without a caption so adding that would help. I think you have a good start but a lot of work needs to be done to get it up to an “A”. Nice work so far though and good luck the rest of the way.