Template:Engr115inprogress

  • Name of Editor:Enrique Diaz
  • Contact Information:Eid4@humboldt.edu
  • Names of Writers:Cecilia Torres and Annie Bartholomew

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 the target audience of this document are people who know about the RCEA retrofits and the audits, and it provides a link to the RCEA for people who may not be informed about the retrofit programs.

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 to the point. To improve the layout i would replace the resources heading with references and i would use the reference option on appropedia to place in text references where need and a links heading at the end with helpful links which summarizes the links.

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 heading used are successful and are placed in a logical order but i do not think that there are enough headings. the page could use a heading that lays out the difference in wattage of the new lights compared to the old lights. Or specifically what model lights were installed and what model lights were taken out

• 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 are topic sentences for each paragraph and the following sentences do relate to the topic sentences. There is a topic sentence under the "Kilowatt-hour and Carbon Dioxide Emission Savings" that starts with "Because" which could be changed to "Due to."

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 and it communicates the facts and i could not find opinions in sentences

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 easy to understand and easy to see. There are a couple things that its missing like an x axis label and maybe a text box with an arrow that shows in the graph when the retrofit occurred. Graphing an average of the information that you have may help you calculate the savings.

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 writer does not refer tot the figures in the text using figure numbers, and the sources are not clearly cited. The figures do have captions, they are thumb nailed, they are even pixel sized and moved to a desired location( left, right,center).

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.

  • I disagree with what you wrote on your memo about not having data enough data to calculate estimated Carbon dioxide and money savings. Even though you do not have data pre retrofit you could do yearly savings and for the year where there is an energy spike you guys could explain in detail the possible reasons why there was a increase in energy use.

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

  • yes , what are the possible explanations an energy increase between apr 08-apr 09. The sources of the information are not clearly presented under Reference because there is no reference summary, there is a Resources summary

• 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 author provides links to related sites that are relevant and i believe the links are technical enough for the audience of the document

  • there is a summary of resources at the end of the page

• 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?

  • According to the recommended length of the page, this page is too short. I recommend that you try to do the calculation with what you have, make yearly savings or average the years that you have to better represent the savings. you could also place tables to represent your data in a concise manner.

• 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 both the engr 115 in progress banner and the engr 115 category at the end

the strengths of the documents are[edit source]

  • page looks good, i like the way the pictures were arranged i had difficulties in my page.
  • easy to read
  • easy to follow
  • information is placed in a logical order,
  • the pictures are all thumb nailed and have descriptions
  • the important information about the energy savings stands out
  • the writing is objective and shows facts


areas for improvement[edit source]

  • you might want to include a table where you list the estimated and actual savings and more information on the kind of lights that were upgraded.
  • the graph's x axis is not labeled and it would be nice for readers if the graph had an arrow showing when the retrofit occurred.
  • syntax error under the effects of retrofit.
  • your resources could be nicely put as foot notes using the reference icon.
  • you guys say that there is an energy consumption increase from april 08-09 i was not quite sure why? what occurred at Carpet one to have the energy spike?
  • syntax error under customer satisfaction
  • i cannot find your page under the RCEA audit section, i have to use the search bar to find it.
  • i believe that you guys should have a picture together in the page.


• Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors)

  • The both of you did a great job and the page look good even though it has minimal errors and the fact that it lacks certain calculations due to insufficient data. According to this peer edit sheet it lacks length as well but i am not too sure if there needs to be a certain length. all that matters is that all relevant information about the retrofits makes it to the page.







Name of Editor:

  • Ryan Mack

Contact Information:

  • Mackattack444@gmail.com

Names of Writers:

  • Annie Bartholomew and Cece Torres


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 anyone interested in the energy and monetary savings involved in replacing incandescent bulbs with fluorescent ones.

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

Yes. The table of contents allows for easy navigation.

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. I appreciated the differences in headers and bold fonts to allow my eyes to navigate the page easier.

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 each primary header is a topic sentence. The following sentences are inclusive of the main point behind each 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 seems a bit biased towards RCEA. This is reasonable, however, seeing as how RCEA did reduce Eureka Floor Carpet One's energy consumption and cost/month.

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?

Under retrofit analysis I really like the bold figures. I might borrow that idea from you two. :)

Along with the kW/month graph, you might include a $/month to make it visually apparent that the company is saving money.

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. More figures could be used, however.

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 did not read CO2 emissions offset by this retrofit other than the estimated figure RCEA provided. Two graphical summations - one of $ and one with CO2 emissions saved by the retrofit would be incredibly beneficial.

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

Possibly change “Resources” to “References.”

Also, include all the links in the references tab. There are several missing.

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 a plethora of resources on this site. The reader may find themselves at a number of different websites. This is appropriate, seeing as how none of the links are broken or uninvolved.

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 2 pages even. This is a fine document size for this 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 it does! Except the RCEA audit tab at the bottom. You should add that.


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

This document is visually appealing. With all the changes in font and the fact that it is still in a topic- paragraph style, this document was easy to peer edit.


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

Minor additions: RCEA audit tab at bottom and more graphs. A picture of the page creators would be nice, too.


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

Thank you for making the peer edit easy. :)


Bryan Schmitt's Peer Review[edit source]

--Bryan Schmitt

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 is RCEA to find out more on what their retrofits have done for the business.

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 I can find the information easily. I think it would be better if the size of the lettering for the section titles were larger and stood out 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.

The headings are used successfully and they are specific enough. Words like Introduction and Effects of Retrofits provide a well guided direction on the page. I also think the headings are in logical order.

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 some of the sections. All of the sentences do follow the section topic, but some topic sentences need to be more to the point. Some paragraphs could also use added 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)

I do not find the writing objective. The information that is stated is nonbiased and shows what happened with the company.

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, every image is easy to look at and understand. I do not think the figures could be improved in any way. The chart showing KWH/Month is clear and to the point.

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 author uses a link to refer to the figure. This is enough to show that the author has incorporated the figure in their text. Every picture has a caption and is well 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.

They have some of the information, but were unable to do some parts of the project because of the business’s change in energy use. I would suggest putting this information in a table to better organize the numbers.

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 clearly represented under References with links to multiple websites.

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 author does provide links to related sites and I do not think there are too many. The links are not too technical for the intended audience. The connection between each site and the page is clear.

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 to short and addition information is needed. I think more information is needed on the effects and reasons for 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

13. List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)I think the strengths of this page lie in the chart and pictures. The chart is clear and very helpful. When reading the text then referring to the chart I was able to easily follow along.


14. List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)I think the most needed improvement would be on the amount of information. I feel that more text is needed to better enforce the page.


15. Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors)Keep up the work and keep trying to get the information you are missing on the energy increase of the business. The savings are needed by the time the page is completed.

--Bryan Schmitt


  • Name of Editor: Trevor Hash
  • Contact Information: tch29 or cell (707)407-8595
  • Names of Writers: Annie Bartholomew and Cece Torres

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 was mainly upper high school students and above. I felt that explaining some of the concepts we understand to others who do not would be beneficial, such as explaining what ballasts are.
  • 2. Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout? The page was designed very well. It flows very well in chronological order. It can be read from top to bottom, but can also be easily navigated if only looking for one specific part. The only part that seems slightly out of place is the change in habits, but it is not necessarily in a bad spot. It could make more sense to place it before the effects of the retrofit.
  • 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. As stated above, the page flows well. All of the headings are descriptive enough to find specific information on the page. The kilowatt hour and carbon dioxide emission savings heading may be too small, as I glanced over it on first pass of the page. It may be beneficial to make this heading more concise as it will help make it pop as heading rather than just text.
  • 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 overall structure, syntax, and diction of the page is very well thought out and executed. I particularly liked the insight into the solar panels and solar heating that the business was looking in 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) There is no bias on the page that was detectable by my analysis.
  • 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 photographs are very well done. They show enough of the lighting to help understand the surroundings in which are being portrayed in writing. The graph slightly overlaps some words, but I don’t know how to fix this problem. Also, the graph doesn’t portray the savings involved in the retrofit, but as you didn’t have sufficient data to analyze this I’m not sure what could be done about this.
  • 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 graph doesn’t tell us much about the savings, so it is hard to say what could be done to help the situation. The graph is referred to in the Change in Habits section quite clearly. You could possible try to find out why the change in habits was so drastic throughout the year.
  • 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. Your situation makes it very difficult for you to make an analysis of the actual savings to be compared to the estimates. The estimates are portrayed quite 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”? Your resources heading may be better stated as references. The name of the on-site contact should be listed as a reference also.
  • 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 links to other sites are sufficient, and used very well throughout the page. I feel that the text is clear enough that the technicalities are parallel to the audience of the webpage. The overall problem is that the actual savings cannot be calculated, making the relevance of the page lack.
  • 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 only part lacking in this page would be a summary of your findings, but this would be impossible as you could not compute the findings that made this page relevant.
  • 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 does not have the RCEA category listed.


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

The page has a good overall structure. It is easy to follow, and is good on the eyes. The pictures taken of the business are well placed, and were taken at angles in which we can get a good reference to what is being discussed on the page. I didn’t find any grammatical errors.

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

Obviously the page cannot be completed until the computations of the actual savings can be completed. This is a major drawback, and yet is the only big part of the page I can find that could be improved upon.

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

You were placed in a pretty horrible situation in that you don’t have enough information to complete the assignment. If it is any consolation our group is going through a situation somewhat similar, it is not only you.