Brandon StorerQ: 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.
A: This web page, I feel, targets those people that are involved in retrofits with RCEA, and want to view the reviews of others that have already retrofitted.
Brandon StorerQ: Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout?
A: The web page is very neatly laid out and easy to navigate.
Brandon StorerQ: 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.
A: The page could use more level two headings and less level one headings to help separate some of the information that would be better understood if in its own paragraph.
Brandon StorerQ: 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.
A: The topic sentences on most of the paragraphs are clear and to the point, although others need to stick to the topic at hand. Supporting sentences are strong and plentiful.
Brandon StorerQ: 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)
A: Writing is somewhat objective, needs removal of some adverbs. Other than that the writing is fact based.
Brandon StorerQ: 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?
A: The figures and photographs are clear and help with understanding the information. One improvement could be to put up a picture of the RCEA building to show viewers that a building that they can visit actually exists.
Brandon StorerQ: 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.
A: One reference to a figure is used, but figure numbers is lacking. Needs to have more references to figures and use figure numbering.
Brandon StorerQ: 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.
A: There is no clear way of telling what the company saved and how much less carbon dioxide the company is emitting.
Brandon StorerQ: Are there any questions you have about the topic that are not addressed? Are the sources of the information clearly presented under “References”?
A: What were the differences in the carbon dioxide readings before and after the retrofit?
Brandon StorerQ: 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?
A: There are enough links provided and references of links is provided. Note that no more links should be added unless absolutely essential.
Brandon StorerQ: 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?
A: The document is too long. The length causes the viewer to lose interest. Some background on the facility could be taken out.
Brandon StorerQ: 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?
A: The page has a "ENGR 115: In Progress" banner and correct categories to both ENGR 115 and RCEA.
Brandon Storer List the strengths of document
• Good layout, easy to navigate
• Lots of information, related links
Brandon Storer List areas for improvement
• Length(shorten page), more level 2 headings
• Less information, figure references, figure numbering
Brandon Storer Overall comments
• Good organization, easy navigation, and lots of related links
• Number your images and refer to them so help clarify some of your topics
• Remove some information, read throughout the entire page and remove some unneeded info
• This page is very helpful in giving information on before and after the retrofit
Chad Herrick Review
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.
Students and people looking to do an energy retrofit on a business.
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. I would state and describe all of the buildings that MCSD has then in the focus on the retrofits instead of flopping back and forth on topics.
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 all used effectively.
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 there is a clear topic sentence for the paragraphs.
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)
For the most part the writing is objective. Sentences such as “Site inspection and interviews at the MAC also revealed some areas of concern,” the word some could be removed. The sentence with ????????? needs to be removed or the actual number needs to be calculated
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 photos and figures are easily understood.
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 cited and have 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.
The page has very useful graphs and tables showing the energy use decline, but the sentence “The Parks and Recreation Department Director has mixed reviews regarding the formulation, implementation, and results of the MAC plan. Actual energy savings for the MAC were recorded at ?????? …,” is very confusing and misleading.
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
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 did provide links to related sites, maybe there could be more links to sites which explain the difference between the new and old lights.
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 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?
Yes
13. List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
The page is very detail oriented and contains useful photos and graphs.
14. List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
The page could use more organization, you might try making headers for each of the buildings and explain their retrofits or future. Make a clear summary about energy savings.
15. Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors) Overall this is an excellent page. Chad Herrick
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 improving the district. 2. Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout? The information is presented well and clear. Easy to navigate. I would decrease the size of the intial picture on 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. Headings are used well. Like the order of 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. Topic sentences are presented with each paragraph. Supporting sentences are strong. 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) Other than some ad-verbs, writing is not 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 picture at the top is way oversized and distracting. 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. A bit of a lack of figure numbers. Some figures and examples would be nice. 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 is no clear presentation of the bottom line. Incorporate a graph or diargram of the money and carbon dioxide. 9. Are there any questions you have about the topics that are not addressed? Are the sources of the information clearly presented under “References”? More specifics about the amount of emissions. 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 two good sites. The sites are just basic however and more sites that are related would be a nice addition. 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 has a good 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 the page has the banner and categories on the bottom.
13. List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
Good organization.
14. List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) More information on the retrofits of the place. More information about money savings.
15. Overall comments: Keep up the good work.
[Shane Mallory]
User:Julien Coppieters Peer Review
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 site generally seems to cater to an audience that is in the know. There are many things that are somewhat assumed the audience is aware of. Perfectly acceptable for those who would most likely be interested in this page, however, I think some things could be changed/added for a more general comfort with the information.
2. Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout?
The information is neatly arranged and available to be found for those who would look. However, it could save the reader some time if specific answers and analyses were highlighted somehow. So they could be found right away.
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 well thought out. Some paragraphs I think would welcome sub headings to better sort the information for the reader.
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.
Topic sentences are clear. The only thing I would change is the addition of more sub headings so the information doesn’t have to remain as broad.
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 excellent.
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?
I think the large top photograph needs some text, just explaining, putting it in context. It would be nice if the table included something explaining what the numbers actually are. For those who want quick answers. The two graphs could use labeled axes.
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 could be more referencing of the figures and the data found in them in the actual 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.
The page lacks this direct information.
9. Are there any questions you have about the topic that are not addressed? Are the sources of the information clearly presented under “References”?
My only questions would relate to the actual comparisons of CO2 emissions, power and money before and after the retrofit.
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?
Good links, references well summarized.
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?
Good 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.
The page is very well written and contains a lot of solid and useful information.
14. List areas for improvement.
The overall text could use more organization, the use of more sub headings perhaps. Label graphs and table for better direct-view understanding. Needs analysis of CO2, power and money savings.
15. Overall comments
Overall this is a very well done page, with only a few minor details to think about changing/adding.
Start a discussion about RCEA energy audit reviews/Mckinleyville Community Services District
Talk pages are where people discuss how to make content on Appropedia the best that it can be. You can use this page to start a discussion with others about how to improve RCEA energy audit reviews/Mckinleyville Community Services District.
