David Bloch's Peer Evaluation[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 page seems to be written toward an Environmental Resources Engineering student at Humboldt who has a preliminary knowledge of what RCEA is, what energy audits and retrofits are, and why this company is getting theirs reviewed. Explain more about the project, so anyone who views the page is well aware of what it is that you are reviewing. Remember, a high schooler should be able to read this and keep up.
2. Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout?
The page is relatively easy to navigate, but it seems like there are missing sections. But overall, what you click is what you get. See question 3 for more on this.
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 definitely implement subheadings, and again, get those missing sections in! You might want to put it in a more logical and chronological order, like intro -> motives -> predictions -> installment -> energy effects -> habits changed or something like that.
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.
Basically every paragraphs topic sentence needs to be overlooked again. Also, you included more than just motives in the motives section, keep in mind that they were motives for this retrofit, not for other retrofits. Every paragraph should relate to the top of that section, and that section should relate to the subject.
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)
Very few subjective adverbs and adjectives were used. Words like large were only used to describe large particles. My only recommendation would be to find (ctrl-f or cmd-f) words like very and many and just delete them. Overall, quite objective for a document dealing with a known problem.
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?
This page does not seem like a good example of purely technical communication. A lot of work must be done to remove the bias towards the store. Remember, you are focusing on the retrofits and the numbers. Focus more on what actually happened, and less on how great the business is. For this assignment, we don’t care about the business, we care about the retrofits and how much energy they use.
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.
Figure numbers were not used. The second picture has no caption, and it should have a caption. Again, reorganize figures to ensure proper ease of readability.
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, there are no numbers, graphs, or tables. The only thing there is the predictions. Calculate the energy used and make a graph out of it.
9. Are there any questions you have about the topic that are not addressed? Are the sources of the information clearly presented under “References”?
Did the retrofits work? Are they saving energy and money?
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 only two links. Link more things! If the reader is curious about something you mention but don’t explicitly describe, make it easy for them to learn more about it. Also, cite your sources and make a references section.
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, but it is incomplete. Add the missing information.
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 has the banner, but is missing the RCEA category. It has the ENGR115 category.
13. List the strengths of document
Has the foundation of a solid page. Pictures are good. Overall format is creative.
14. List areas for improvement
Finish the project. Add the missing data. Remember that centering is often tacky, except for the warning at the top of the page. Add figures. Correct captions. Fix the grammar. Add topic sentences. Reorganize the sections.
15. Overall comments
Given the time you had to make the page, I understand that it is incomplete. But now you should be working hard to finish it! Remember that a lot of people have low resolution monitors, so putting pictures next to each other with text in between may make it hard for some people to read your page. This is a solid beginning to your project, and I can tell that you have put the thought and energy into this project. Now just put it into the page!
Peer Evaluation performed by David Bloch
Adam McGuire's peer review[edit source]
1. The page seems to assume knowledge of RCEA, maybe a bit more info on them and what an “energy audit” is and why they are involved.
2.The motives section is a bit confusing, and the satisfaction part is ambiguous without any numbers. It seems like they were happy because RCEA came in and gave them a bunch of free stuff. #s? A lot seems to be obviously missing.
3.There are many missing. Tables, Graphs, #’s? I would try to make the point and summary of each section more concise and clear. Definitely a bit more describing the project costs and estimated savings. A section for RCEA would be nice to begin the page. Relate “motives” more to savings in dollars, it seems it would make more sense in the description of actual savings rather than its own heading, remove opinions. Technical advantage vs. disadvantage is better.
4.Needs improvement. I would separate ideas for future projects from the motives section, maybe as a subset. Make the habit changes section more clear overall. Will these changes remain in place? #s? How do they affect the savings numbers? Honest Engine topic sentence could be much more concise. Any opinionated info, if not removed completely which it should be, must be clearly identified as such. This is most evident in the motives and satisfaction sections.
5.Be careful in the habit changes and particularly motives/satisfaction sections, it seems like there is some opinion in all. Did DHL stop using their warehouse due to business decisions? Was concern for the environment really his first motivation? Why then, did it take a third party to come to him in order to get these “easy” changes made?etc. I would just omit opinion and motives altogether and just focus and what changes were actually done and if the numbers matched up with those proposed, which is really the issue here. Do the habit changes factor into the technical data and cost savings (proposed vs. actual)?
6.A comparison between the old and new systems would be a nice visual. Graphs and tables would help to visually depict the numbers.
7.The pictures are not referred to using fig. numbers, although their placement makes general sense. They are not really mentioned in text directly. They do have captions, which seems to be the easiest way to identify them. Make more direct reference within text.
8.NO. Present actual data for $ saved in both graphs and tables when possible. There is nothing at all about carbon dioxide emissions or how it relates to this issue in general. Make some tables and graphs!
9.Opinions vs. Business decisions. There is no reference section, include one. What percentage of the savings was due directly to the new lights? Reflectors? Habit changes? In both the proposed and actual data. Breakdown of per building usage?
10.The link to RCEA helps a great deal but still needs to be explained a bit more in the text, maybe its own heading. Only one other for the light bulb, which seems to be a site where you can purchase bulbs. I would maybe find a different site directed more at information or at least indicate the nature of the site you choose to use.
11.Too short, the project seems and is unfinished, it’s a bit hard to even evaluate at this point. Actual numbers vs. projected savings.
12.Yes it has the banner but No it does not have RCEA as a category at the end of the page
13.The project page has been started and one can get a general idea of what changes have been made at Honest Engine. There are some real photographs of the location with captions. Additional ideas for future projects are mentioned. Link to RCEA is provided.
14. List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) Project needs to be finished, at least presenting the actual data and information relating to whether or not the projections were meet. Include tables and graphs, and focus on before vs. after #s. Take out motives/satisfaction sections or at least remove possibly opinionated information. Other than the owners name I would omit any personal info and/or their individual “ideas”, keep the issue on changes made the numbers those changes produced. Who the owner knows does not matter. Be more concise and clear in your descriptions such as with Honest Engine (maybe include characteristics as bullets, dimensions, location, average energy use.) Sentences could be rewritten or worded differently to make more sense, achieve better flow and be of a more technical nature. Include a bit more description of old system (maybe a subset or bullet of Honest Engine) and the actual project of the energy audit (subset or bullet of RCEA heading. Are the habit change and DHL contract information taken into account for the proposed vs. actual energy use and cost savings data? Include CO2 emission information and data.
15. Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors) I did note your considerations. It was difficult to evaluate this page completely, much of the essential data information is missing at this point. There is really nothing to support the proposed savings, which is the majority of this project. Keep your paragraphs short and concise, focusing on summary of following information. The longer the paragraph the less technical it seems to become. Consider introducing RCEA first. Focus on numbers, omit all opinion and info/ideas of Bob Neely in particular, they bring up a whole range of questions and issues which is not what this page is here to address.
Andy Preiksa's Peer Review[edit source]
1)The target audience is the general public. The writing is simple enough (not just scientific terms) that anyone could understand it.
2)The comparison between the RCEA estimates and what the real saving was difficult to find. A table would make that comparison easier to find. The bullets are helpful. The building’s detentions are mixed into the text in a confusing way.
3)The headings are clear and in a logical order. References Heading? The picture layout messes with the headings so they aren’t uniform throughout the page. This would make it easier to navigate.
4)See page for specifics. Most have clear topic sentence. Ideas are organized.
5)Motives for Retrofit and Satisfaction use words such as “huge” and “very”
6)Photograph layout is not consistent throughout the page. This messes with your headings and makes the page harder to read. Same size/place on page would help the reader.
7)Text does not refer back to the figures. No charts/graphs to refer to. Some pictures are missing captions.
8)This information is hard to find. A table would help. Graphs of what the company used for power would be a nice visual. This could be its own heading?
9)There are no references. Sources are not listed, but are sited in the writing.
10)There are links to other sources. One seems like it is just there so you have enough for the assignment.
11)The site is short. It seems like detail could be added now that you have more time after the interview with the owner.
12)The warning is there. The RCEA category is missing
13)
- Good Start for how little time you had to complete this
- Plenty of pictures to supplement the writing
- All Questions have started to be answered
14)
- Layout of pictures makes page hard to read
- Table that compares predictions to the actual savings
- More detail
- Charts or graphs would be helpful
- If other companies are using the building, what are they doing to save energy?
15)Overall this is a good start on the project, especially for the time restriction that was put on you. From what is there, I would suggest a different layout for the pictures. Currently they make the text hard to read. More detail is needed. I still am confused as to what the real savings are for this company.
Nathen Theobald's peer reveiw[edit source]
1. The general public target is the audience. Writing is simple enough to understand easily.
2. The bullets help. The comparison between the real savings and the RCEA estimates were not easy to locate. A table would make things easier to find. Putting the motives to retrofit before the retrofitting implemented could flow better.
3. The headings are clear. Order is great except for maybe the aforementioned switching of the motives. References Heading? The picture layout and the headings aren’t uniform throughout. Tinker with it a bit. Work on picture placement/format a little, could be better.
4. The majority of the content has clear topic sentences. A few are lacking or could be refined. Ideas are organized relatively well.
5. Use less jocular or possibly biasing language. Like huge, etc. have more defined vocabulary. Should be simple, but still relatively formal.
6. Pics are not organized in a consistent fashion, fix to make it flow better for the reader
7. Some of the pictures lack captions. No graphs or charts to refer to. Would help to link or directly talk about your figures in the text
8. TABLE. That would help a lot. It also looks way more legit. These numbers were not easy to find. Work on that. Graphs? Power consumption. Make the bottom line just about the easiest piece of info to find on your page. To present this type of retrofit as something that has valid incentives to the public, these numbers should stand out above almost everything else.
9. Sources cited briefly in text but not really cited enough later. No references
10. There are links. Seems like there are just enough for the assignment. Could be better
11. The page is relatively short. A lot of detail could be added.
12. The warning is there. The RCEA category is missing
13. List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
- Good Start, especially for being put together a little last minute
- Plenty of pictures
- Addressed almost all requirements
14. List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
- Layout of pictures
- More detail
- Charts or graphs would be helpful
- Table that compares predictions to the actual savings, power consumption etc.
15. Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors)
So far so good, especially for the time restrictions at hand. More detail is needed. I am confused about the real savings for this retrofit. Keep working on it, picture layout needs help especially. Elaborate on what you have.