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 the main target audience would be the general public. The writing in this document was well written and understandable.
2. Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout?
All the information was very well presented. The page layout was very structured and flowed nicely through the document. However, I would suggest putting a reference tab at the bottom of the webpage; it’s not formal to have the website citations in the 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.
The headings are used correctly and look good. I would suggest moving all titles to the left hand margin and align the headings with each other for easier reading. The title of the store should be a larger heading size, as I almost did not see the heading. I did really like the usage of the bullet points because it allowed each part of the background to be easily represented. Nice structure!
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 uses a bullet point structure rather than paragraphs, so there are very few topic sentences. The few topic sentences presented describe the preceding paragraph well. I would suggest changing the topic sentence for the retrofits section as it is informal to start a paragraph with specific values (Also, the monetary value needs to have a dollar symbol).
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 on this webpage is mostly objective by identifying the specific information that the reader is looking for. However, there are a few phrases in the webpage that are opinions such as: it is impossible, whatsoever, at just, this is probably, and a few others that should be revised. I notice that on the webpage there was a sentence that started with “because,” which is not appropriate for technical writing.
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 present a nice representation of the company and what the business is about. I would suggest making the graph smaller, because it is overwhelming on the webpage. On the graph, make the date that the retrofit took place more apparent so the reader can see the change in energy consumption. Move the pictures away from the left hand margin, to make it easier to see where the headings begin.
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.
None of the figures are referenced in the text and they also need figure numbers to identify each figure’s part in the analysis of the retrofit. The pictures are not cited, and if the writer personally took the pictures, just make a note in the caption “taken by… (Your name).” The captions describe the pictures well, but look at the use of capital letters in the caption 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.
The writers have clearly presented the predicted savings on both the carbon dioxide emissions and monetary savings, but I did not see a clear comparison to actual savings and carbon emissions. As a side note I saw that your prediction number did not have a dollar symbol in the text. On the graph I would remove the trend line from the graph, since we should not expect a linear usage of the kWh throughout the year. I would suggest making a table to clearly compare the expected money and carbon dioxide savings from RCEA and the actual values.
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, there is no reference heading on their page to clearly represent each page.
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 have provided related links to the Food for People website, but I strongly suggest since you have two of the same URLs written in the document to add a reference heading below to address each citation. There should be more than one website addressed in the webpage, maybe the RCEA website or a website on the new refrigerators that are going to be implemented. The title of the company, Engineers Without Borders, should all have capitalized first letters in the text throughout the webpage; there are a few incidents where the title is inconsistent in the document.
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 and the authors can make it longer by adding the tables and more sources, which have already been discussed above.
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 webpage has both the banner and categories in the appropriate places.
13. List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
The strengths of this document are that the webpage has a lot of background information on the client and how each retrofit would affect the business. I also like that they added in extra information to describe the dramatic differences in their graph due to malfunctioning appliances.
14. List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
I would say that the Appropedia page at the current time is a nice start of addressing the information asked. I would like to see the group expand on the comparisons of RCEA predictions and actual figures.
15. Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors)
Great job on your page it looks great!
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 if 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 fairly easy to find. I like the use of bullet points and i would possibly add some secondary quick links at the top for the [vision, mission statement, and history] sections.
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. Possibly reformat the heading so that they are more defined between sections.
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 for the most part all related to the topic sentence at hand. Possibly make the topic sentences more to the point, and talk more about the actual retrofit that they did you start talking about refrigerators in the retrofit 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) 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 some things that should be changed in the Future retrofits section.
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. I feel that the graph at the bottom is a little weird looking just sitting at the bottom. maybe show some more graphs that pertain to the information like CO2, and energy before and then after on a 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; 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 do not have any captions. Add 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, they also showed the energy used but have not shown the carbon dioxide emissions saved do to the retrofits. they only show the estimated but do not show anything about the actual. They do have a nice table showing the difference in the energy consumption in the years before and after the retrofits. 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 money did they actually save after the retrofit. 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? Yes they did add links to related sites but i would like them better if the where renamed so you didn’t have to see the http:// 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.
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 not very strong to me. But i feel that some of its strengths are that they supplied a lot of background information and talked future retrofits.
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? How much money did they actually save after the retrofit. 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.
Jake Hauk'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.
This is a very straightforward page. The target audience is the general public, not too many fancy terms. Looks close to a final product. You could make the writing on the future retrofits tab a little more cohesive. Overall great job
2. Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout?
Not really. The graph is the main thing I would change. The main thing you really need is for the graph to be annotated with an arrow showing the retrofit date. Also I think, personally, that there should be more dates on your X-axis. The trend-line isn’t really necessary.
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.
All the headings seem perfectly understandable. Personally, I would only suggest centering them.
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, everything makes sense and reads well.
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, I feel like all the writing on this web page was done well. There are a few grammar and spelling errors. Besides that the writing is fine.
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 pictures are what need most changing on your page. The graph is hard to understand, and the auxiliary pictures are too small to clearly see.
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.
All figures are correctly used. Good representations of the business. The graph is the main thing I would change.
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 is a special exception where their data was soiled by malfunctioning refrigerators.
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 tab or 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, I think it wouldn’t hurt to have more. Such as a link to RCEA
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 page is of satisfactory 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?
YES
13. List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
Very clearly displayed.
I like the section about the business, you definitely gave them a good name. This is one of the better pages I’ve seen.
14. List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
THE GRAPH. That’s the only thing I would change about your page. Besides the few grammar and spelling errors. Great Job guys
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 target audience is home or business owners who might be looking for some savings.
2.Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout? I would move the contents over to one side while putting the food for people underneath it on top and making it bigger. Enlarge the picture at the top.
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 in chronological order which is easy to follow.
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 sentence under Retrofits is detailed, maybe making it more generalized would be helpful to the reader.
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, especially the data analysis is 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 photographs are kind of small and hard to veiw without clicking on them. The data table at the bottom could use even intervals at the bottom where the dates are and also an explanation of the spike near the end. Consider presenting graph before explanation.
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 are no figure numbers which would be helpful in making the relation between the explanation and the graph clear.
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. Maybe another graph comparing the cost reductions and the energy saved when you have the data would be nice.
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 are no sources and no section for References. The information involving the retrofits is complete.
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 links to the company that was upgrade's site, maybe a link to a site involving the technical aspect of the energy audit.
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? It's too short, adding more of a background and more data analysis, maybe after more data becomes available.
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.
13.List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
The information presented is good and easy to follow.
14.List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
The page needs more images, the topics are good but they could be expanded and more information added.
15.Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors)
The page looks good, I think If the layout was fixed and more info regarding the energy savings was added it would make for a good page.
Alex Hiebert'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 Main audience is RCEA. They will be interested in the feedback you have received from the business. I think the writing is appropriate style for the audience.
2. Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout? Information is very easy to locate. Heading are properly used with bold and different levels. Bullets and links are also used effectively.
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 with the content in them as advertised. Headings are specific enough and are in Bold to easily spot them. I think they are in logical order for the most part. One thing that I might change would be to put “data analysis” right after “retrofits” so the reader gets that information immediately after reading what has been changed at the business site.
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. In the first two sections there is a clear topic sentence, and then it goes into the information. But in the final two sections, it goes straight into bullets and you might want to give a brief topic sentence before those two areas.
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 think you have done a great job in not having a bias writing style. Seems as information is written properly.
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 images are easy to understand. There are a few changes I would make including adding units to the graph and maybe adding more photos of you 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. No there are no figure numbers That I can see. Each figure is described in the captions but not in the text. I would recommend trying to expand on it in the body 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. Yes. I think this is a strong point of your project. You have well documented the retrofits cost and the savings of both money and energy because of them. I would consider adding a graph that shows the CO2 and money savings just to have a visual. 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 the 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. The links are used well to tell the reader what the business being retrofitted is all 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? It looks like your page would be about two pages long which meet the criteria. With the remaining weeks if you could expand on what has already been said or add some more photos/graphs it might be beneficial.
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 have the banner and is under the correct category.
13. List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
• Format • Links • Retrofit information
14. List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
• Spacing • More graphs • More pictures of business
15. Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors)
It looks like you are off to a great start and have some quality work done. I think if you keep building on what you have now, this should be a successful project for the both of you. Your strong points I think are organization and just the content in general. If possible, I think some more visual aids will take you Page to the next level and really help the reader get a picture of what your business looks like and the retrofits made. Good job so far and keep up the good work!