Talk:RCEA energy audit reviews/McMurray

From Appropedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

We need to make the graph's labels larger, and an arrow pointing to when the retrofit took place.

[edit source]

Izzy Konopa's Comments[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 would likely be people from the RCEA, ENG 115 students and affiliates of McMurray and Sons Roofing. Since this is a technical document and not a promotional one, I would suggest omitting the company jingle.

2. Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout? Yes the information presented is easy to navigate. However the document needs photos of the business and photos of the retrofits.

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 successful. I would suggest describing the business in greater detail and also adding a section describing the RCEA and their role in the process. I would also suggest a larger heading for the cost/savings comparison. Also the heading, “Location” doesn’t fit the following paragraph. Instead, a heading like, Electrical Consumption, seems more appropriate.

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 are clear for each paragraph. I would suggest that the topic sentence of The Retrofit, and the topic sentence of The Retrofit and Usage Details be placed together as they both contain explicit details concerning the retrofit. I would also combine all the sentences describing the company’s experience with the retrofit into one section under the heading, After the Retrofit.

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 is objective and without bias or opinion. Again, I would suggest omitting the company jingle from the page.

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? There are no photographs. The graph was easy to understand and clearly illustrated the drop in electrical consumption. However, I would recommend adding a text box with an arrow indicating the time the retrofit was completed.

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 references to the figure using text numbers. The graph is explained with a clear heading. I would suggest trying to make the type larger so that the graph is easier to read.

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, the writers have clearly presented the predicted savings compared with the actual savings. They did not use a table, which would probably make it easier to read. I would suggest putting that information into table format.

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 “References” section, and I would suggest including one if there are references to cite.

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 was only one link and that was to the business. I would suggest including a link to the RCEA and PG&E with an explanation about the funding for the retrofits.

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. With a short section describing the RCEA, PG&E and the funding, it will be the right 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? No, there was no “ENG 115:In progress” banner. There were no categories titles ENGR 115 or RCEA at the end of the page.


13. List the strengths of document – The document is clear, concise and easy to read. The important information is all there and the results of the retrofit are presented clearly. The page looks about seventy five percent complete at this time.


14. List areas for improvement –. The page still needs some work and this includes: 1) Pictures of the business and the retrofits. 2) Hyper links to the RCEA and PG&E. 3) A text box and arrow on the graph indicting when the retrofit was done. 4) Editing of text so that each paragraph follows the topic sentence.


15. Overall comments – Good job. Your off to a really good start.

Taylor Edwards' Comments[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 is the RCEA and/or the ENGR 115 class. The page should be adjusted to target any random person who visited the site. This would mean going into deeper detail about the RCEA and it’s mission.

2. Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout? The page is easily navigated easily and the information is easily found. I would, however, include the “Location” section in the “History Behind McMurray” section.

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 bigger than the subheadings. Other than that the headings make sense. Like I said, the “Location” heading should be deleted and its information should be included in the background paragraph.

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, the topic sentences serve their purpose.

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, overall, objective. I would say that the word “many” should be replaced with “numerous” or “multiple”.

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 easy to read but it should include a indication of when the retrofit was completed so that the reader can relate it to the results. I would also suggest pictures of the business itself.

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 sources are not sited. Pictures should be included. The graph contains a heading.

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 numbers are given and show the results of the retrofit but I would include a conclusion paragraph that discusses the results. I would also put the data into a table rather than the current format.

9. Are there any questions you have about the topic that are not addressed? Are the sources of the information clearly presented under “References”? I don’t have any questions about the results of the retrofit. There isn’t a references section.

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 aren’t enough links on this page. I suggest adding a link to the RCEA homepage. The link that is there is appropriate.

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 feel that the document should contain more text. A conclusion paragraph could be included as well as more information on the background of the 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? It doesn’t contain either of these items.

13. List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) In the endgame, the site does address the topic and present the necessary information. However, the way that this information is presented is too raw and underdeveloped.

14. List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) Grammar and word choice is a key problem. The formatting/organization of the information should be revised.

15. Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors) When I looked up the site there were several pages with the same name. You should delete these to reduce the chances of somebody looking at the wrong page. There is also a seemingly random definition of “retrofit” in one section.

Cece Torres' Comments[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 for thins page is to the ENGR 115 students to and to other businesses interested in RCEA. I would suggest removing the company jingle,the page is not an advertisement and the jingle makes it feel like your advertising for McMurray and Sons instead of just giving us the information to interpret for ourselves.

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 has a really simple layout. This page needs at least one picture. There also seems to be a lot of bolded words. If you removed all the bolding from the Proposed Cost and savings section i think it would make your page a lot cleaner.

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. Company Jingles sub heading should be taken out, The Retrofit and Usage Details subheading heading isn't very specific, and its already under The Retrofits heading so it seems a little redundant and unnecessary.The information under the Locations subheading doesn't go along with the business Location

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 are clear for each paragraph. I would suggest that the topic sentence of The Retrofit, and the topic sentence of The Retrofit and Usage Details be placed together as they both contain explicit details concerning the retrofit. I would also combine all the sentences describing the company’s experience with the retrofit into one section under the heading, After the Retrofit.

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 is objective. I think the only time you use objective writing is to talk about what the business owners had said about the retrofit.

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 title of the graph could tell a little more about the 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. There is no referring to the figures within the text.The sources are not cited.

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 stated the bottom line but not in a graph or table.Besides using a graph to improve the comparison, you can also refer to the the graph with the data

9. Are there any questions you have about the topic that are not addressed? Are the sources of the information clearly presented under “References"? I don't have any questions. The sources need to be presented.

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 except RCEA. The source provided makes sense and a few more will definitely provide credibility and more information for the reader.

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 was to short and could use some more information implemented through out the entire page.

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? There was no ENG 115: In Progress banner and there were no categories title, ENGR 115 or RCEA at the end of the page. 
13. List the strengths of document -simple -straight forward

14. List areas for improvement -more information about the actual retrofit ex: what kind of lighting or retrofits were made, when the retrofit took place,how much lighting was replaced and more factual information. -More formal language should be used -insert pictures -make sure everything is concise, scannable, and objective for the readers of this page -The sources need to be cited, there needs to be more hyperlinks -make sure that all the information goes along with each heading and sub heading accurately. -more accurate information used. ex: the main employers, more efficient ones - include the purpose of all this information(conclusion)


15. Overall comments. You have a good start but there is definitely a need for improvement.

Michael Chenaille's Comments[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 anyone who is interested in the specifics and effectiveness of the retrofit of McMurray & Sons Roofing Company.

2. Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout? Yes the information is easy to navigate. Information is easy to find. More graphics would help.

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 useful, enough are used, and they are specific. They are in a logical order. Used level 2 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. Often times the topic sentence is the entire paragraph or the majority of it. Elaboration would help.

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) Objective for the most part, maybe not say the business has “many buildings” but rather multiple or various buildings. Maybe even a plethora.

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 easy to understand, but could be a little bigger. The only other figures I would suggest would be a picture of the company and a data table.

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. They do not refer to the figures in the text using figure numbers. Sources are not explicitly cited. Figure does not have a caption, but it has a title.

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 clearly presented the bottom line, but a graphic displaying the actual savings next to the projected savings would make the difference more obvious.

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 other questions, the sources are not clearly presented under “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? They provided a link to the McMurray and Sons site, that is all. There is no summary of references. They are technical enough for the audience.

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 is too short, there seems to be a lot of analysis missing. Try verbally explaining the graphs and data.

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 banner.


13. List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) Titles, graph, history of company, process of retrofit


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


15. Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors) Definitely a good start, but could use more information in most areas. If you need me to elaborate on anything feel free to contact me. Michael Chenaille

Lost line[edit source]

It seems like the first attempt to create a page used a forbidden character, &, in the title, making the page inaccessible. Unfortunately our MediaWiki software doesn't give a warning about thet.

I'm deleting all such pages now; the only content in that version is below, for the record:

Originating in Des Moines Iowa in 1919, Thomas J McMurray had a dream to create a quality roofing company. 1948 he moved to Eureka becoming one of the main employers in the area, then expanding to Cresent city. Then in 1991 the McMurray roofing company expanded all the way to Grants pass Oregon.

--Chriswaterguy 16:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)