Jamie's Review[edit source]
1.Who do you feel is the target audience for the writing in this document?
The tone of the web page is very casual. There doesn’t seem to be a direct target toward one particular type of audience.
2.Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout?
The web page is finely organized and clear. The graphs used are easy to understand and follow the information provided. The overall layout is good, however it could a picture or two. Need CO2 emission reduction information! Need references as well.
3.Who do you feel is the target audience for the writing in this document?
'''The headings help with the navigation and are clear and the information following is relevant to topic.
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?
Some of the grammar is a little off. A lot of the sentence structure, syntax, could use some editing to make the sentences flow more smoothly.
5.Is the writing objective?
The writing is not biased toward any one side. The information provided is straight forward and precise with no fluffing.
6.Is each figure or photograph easy to understand? How could the figures be improved?
The graphs are clear and labeled accordingly, however the second graph presenting the money saved could use a little color. I believe a picture of the complex or a CFC would do nicely to brighten up the site.
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?
The graphs are not referred to in the information, however they are next to relevant information. It would help if the graphs were numbered and then mentioned in the information provided, making the information even more clear and precise.
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?
No information of CO2 emission reduction. You need to obtain that information from the RCEA and present it, a graph would be simple and effective.
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 is no information on how much CO2 was reduced by the retrofiting. Who/what/where are your 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 needs to be a link to a related page: CO2 emissions, ENGR, on CFCs, or RCEA Only links are to the Users.
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 information is short sweet and to the point, which I personally like. The only information needed is the CO2 reductions.
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 site does include the warning, however it does include a link to the ENGR page.
13.List the strengths of document: Solid construction
- Clear topics (no B.S)
Graphs are clear & easy to understand
- Functional links
14.List areas for improvement:
- Graph need color coordination
No info on CO2 emissions
- Missing links (RCEA)
15.Overall comments:
You guys are off to a great start! The overall construction of the site is awesome and easy to navigate through. Just need to present the CO2 emissions, make some links and you’ll be golden. Good Luck!
Andres Pineda's 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 targeted audience is the general public.
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 and very organized.
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 even though they are not being used in their usual manor. In my opinion the headings are not in the right order, habits changed should be one of the last things mentioned.
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.
Each paragraph has a clear topic sentence followed by related information.
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 not objective. All the paragraphs are unbiased and lack opinion.
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 are very easy to understand and very visually pleasing.
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 by figure numbers. There are no sources. The figures are lacking 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.
No carbon dioxide emissions are shown. I recommend showing carbon dioxide emissions 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”?
What are the carbon dioxide emissions before and after the retrofits? There are neither sources nor a Reference heading.
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 no links at all, more are definitely needed.
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; it needs references and more information on carbon dioxide emissions.
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 correct banners are placed at the bottom.
13. List the strengths of document
Great graphs, they look very nice and friendly.
14. List areas for improvement
The figures need captions. A section on carbon dioxide emission needs to be added.
15. Overall comments
Great so far, just a few more additions to your Appropedia page and it should look fine.
Garrett's 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. I feel that the target audience for this writing is the many people who read the appropedia pages to learn more about what the RCEA actually does and it it seems to work the way it should. I think that the writing for this is appropriate for the audience.
2. Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout? Yes; the information that has been presented on the page is very easy to navigate. Yes; I have found that the necessary information is easy to find. Good use of the quick links at the top of the page. Lay out seems to be very clean and an ease to navigate. The layout seems good possibly space out the sections a little more.
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. Yes; enough headings are used in the webpage. Headings are well organized and in logical order to what they are trying to present, I would like them more if that where a little bolder. Secondary heading are good but should in my opinion should be less bold as the main 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. Yes; after reading there is clear topic sentences pertaining to each paragraph. The following sentences after the topic sentences are all related to the topic sentence at hand. Possibly make the topic sentences more to the point. And for paragraph under Save money? Possibly add the cost as to how much the retrofit cost.
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 on the webpage is objective and does not really show any bias comments or opinion. It only really stats information and facts. There is a adverb in the section would the retrofit have happened without the RCEA’s offer? that could be deleted.
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; the figure that are shown are easy to read and understand. You could possibly allow it to be clicked to go to a more blown up view of the picture so that it could be easier to read for someone with not to good of eyesight. Could possibly ad some photos of the actual building, or some of the retrofits that they actually did.
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 writer does not refer to the images that they used with figure numbers. The figures are not written about in any of there text. and the sources are not cited. The figures also bo not have any captions. I feel that you should add picture of the retrofits allow for the pictures to have captions so that there is so detailing information and also ad figure numbers corresponding to the picture and possibly insert the figure number in the text that it corresponds to.
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 have shown the predicted cost and actual after the retrofits, they also showed the energy used but have not shown the carbon dioxide emissions saved do to the retrofits. They do have a nice table showing the difference in the energy consumption in the years before and after the retrofits. Also have a nice graph showing the cost saved after the retrofits. But shows no information about the carbon dioxide emissions.
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 is the savings in the Carbon Dioxide Emissions? How much did the retrofit cost? There is no Reference section at all. Need to make one and say where 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? There is no links shown anywhere on there webpage linking to related sites or facts. I feel that they are technical enough for the target audience. There is no summary of references and they need to add some 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? The length of this document is a little short. But could easily be made to the right length after adding information of carbon dioxide emissions and possibly elaborating on the money savings. And adding pictures related to the retrofits and possibly the building that was retrofitted.
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 also has the correct categories at the bottom of the page.
13. List the strengths of document - I feel that the strength of this site is pretty strong . I feel that some of its strengths are that they supplied good background information
14. List areas for improvement – Needs to be formated a little better maybe make it for eye catching by adding some picture and possibly add a little more information. What is the savings in the Carbon Dioxide Emissions? There is no Reference section at all. Need to make one and say where information was found.
15. Overall comments – Good job keep up the good work and you will have a great website.
Phillip Chapot's reveiw[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 page is meant for a broad range of audiences, not one specific group.
2.Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout? The layout is made easy by the contents box at the top of 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. The main heading should be in bold with the sub headings shouldn't.
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 for each paragraph are clear.
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 section “overall experience with the RCEA” started sounding opinionated. The information on energy savings was 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? The figures were clear and easy to understand, but they weren't referenced in the text.
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. Writing up what the graphs show in terms of energy saved would be helpful to get the facts across.
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 are no graphs explaining the carbon dioxide emissions saved. The projected savings and actual savings were presented without a graph which would be a nice addition.
9.Are there any questions you have about the topic that are not addressed? Are the sources of the information clearly presented under “References”? Maybe more about how the RCEA carried out the their part of the project. Also referencing them in you page to show where you got it from.
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 no links to related 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? The document is a little short. Maybe adding some more pictures or expanding on the savings/emissions.
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 document was very easy to read and understand. The graphs were also easy to understand and the type of graphs used were effective.
14.List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
Some of the information was a little repetitive, also there was nothing about the carbon dioxide emissions. An explanation of the savings at the bottom would be good.
15.Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors)
Good first draft, a little polishing and your set.