Talk:RCEA energy audit reviews/RREDC

From Appropedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Jimmy Vasquez

1.Who do you feel is the target audience for the writing in this document?

I feel the target audience consists of energy conscious individuals and local residents. That being said, I believe the writing is appropriate for them. I would; however, recommend some minor improvements to the page.

2.Is the information presented easy to navigate?

The information is easy to navigate. I would remove the edit instructions from the bottom of page.

3.Are headings used successfully?

You might want to change the layout. I suggest changing calculations section to a level one so it is clearly separated from the rest and removing the bullets from energy used, electrical charges, and CO2 emissions by switching to level two.

4.Is there a clear topic sentence for each paragraph?

I feel the topic sentences are clear and their paragraphs follow through with relevant sentences.

5.Is the writing objective?

I feel the writing is objective.

6.Is each figure or photograph easy to understand?

I feel a diagram would be helpful. One that gives an idea of the layout of the offices and where the lights were installed.

7.Does the writer refer to the figure(s) in the text using figure numbers?

I do not feel that reference to the figures is very necessary. There aren’t many pictures and each has a caption as well as being located next to relevant text.

8.Have the writers clearly presented the bottom line?

The page is missing a predicted amount of money and CO2. Might I suggest a larger multicolored graph broken down into twelve months utilizing a different color for each year to make things a little easier to comprehend?

9.Are there any questions you have about the topic that are not addressed?

What was the cost and how long will it take for the system to pay for itself?

10.Does the author provide links to related sites?

Two links provided to the same page. I attempted to go to that page, but it could not be found. Suggest that a separate section be created at the bottom listing links. Additionally, I saw no references section.

11.Is the document too long or short?

Once the page is complete, I’m sure it will be more than adequate.

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 banner and category are listed appropriately.

13.List the strengths of document.

The page is aesthetically pleasing.

14.List areas for improvement.

Overall, it looks unfinished. Perhaps another picture? One showing one of the lights themselves of the office well lit.

15.Overall comments.

It’s coming along. A little more information and the page will be fine.

Jimmy Vasquez

Peer Edit #2[edit source]

Adam Webster 1.Who do you feel is the target audience for the writing in this document?

It feels like the target audience is a professional environmentalist in the Background section but then seems more casual in the Retrofits section. This part could use more formal language.

2.Is the information presented easy to navigate?

The information is very well displayed, and the chart is located in a good place. The layout of under “Calculations” makes the information easy to understand.

3.Are headings used successfully? Are enough headings used?

Headings are used well on the page. But you might divide the “Retrofits” section into one about the retrofits and one about the effect on the RREDC’s habbits.

4.Is there a clear topic sentence for each paragraph?

Under the “Retrofits” section there should be a second paragraph about the habit changes and a topic sentence about the paragraph.

5.Is the writing objective?

There is no bias or noticeable opinion in the author’s writing that I can see.

6.Is each figure or photograph easy to understand? How could the figures be improved?

The picture and graph are easy to view and act as good diversions from the words but the graph is confusing. The KWH fluctuate between lows and the rate prior to the retrofit. An explanation would be helpful here.

7.Does the writer refer to the figure(s) in the text using figure numbers?

The pictures are not referred to in the text. Textual sources are cited with a link in the first half of the page.

8.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?

The carbon dioxide, money, and KWH saved are all easily viewed and well displayed. However there is no mention of the predicted savings compared to actual savings. You might put “predicted savings= ###” right above the “average used before” section in each of the three calculation areas.

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 paragraph about habit changes and whether they would have done the retrofit without RCEA is confusing. Consider re-wording this paragraph.

10.Does the author provide links to related sites?

Yes, there is a link to RREDC, but only as a citation. Turning the link into a concise hyperlink instead of the entire www. RREDC.com/about.html would look more put together and professional.

11.Is the document too long or short?

The page is too short. Explain details of the lighting retrofit; what kind of lights did they hang, how many lights were replaced.

12.Does the page have the “ENGR 115: In Progress” banner? Does the page have the correct categories at the end of page?

Yes both categories are included as well as the banner.

13.List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) The Calculations section is easy to read and the placement of the graph next to this section works well.

14.List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) Re-word the “Retrofits” area. The sentences are choppy and difficult to understand at times. In the calculations section if the “before” and “after” in each sentence were bold the readers would have an easier time finding the information they are looking for.

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

The picture of their office is fuzzy. I suggest either inserting it into the page at a smaller size so it doesn’t look as fuzzy or retaking the picture. It's a good start but there is plenty more to add.

Peer Edit #3[edit source]

Logan Baumgartner

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 like the target audience is people who are interested in RREDC more than the retrofit because the “Background” section is the most detailed.

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, however there can be more level one headings and level two headings.

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 “Retrofit” section could be more detailed. It should be a level one heading and have sub-headings pertaining to what questions you asked the company. The “Calculations” section could be a level one heading as well because the information is presented in a different format, and the section contains graphs.

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 are only two paragraphs on the page, and the “Retrofits” one can be redone with a clearer topic sentence. The body sentences should support the topic sentence more.

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 objective, but in the “Mission” point you said “Our mission,” like you are part of RREDC.

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 makes sense but the graph can be improved. The x-axis is labeled well, but the dates seem random. Perhaps use a different interval, and leave out the days.

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 figure numbers are used well in the calculations section, but they are not referred to or described at any point.

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 graph should be bigger on the page and its title should be changed from “KWh vs. Months” to something like “RREDC monthly KWh consumption.”

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 doesn’t appear to be any 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?

The link to the engineering homepage is good, but the other link leads to a page with no text on it.

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. Go more in detail about the 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? The page has the correct categories and banner.


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

The page contains detailed information about the business. The numbers are also presented well.

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

You should spend some more time on the page making it more detailed. Delete the heading tutorial at the bottom of the page because it has no relevance to the content of the page.

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

Don’t worry too much because you guys were obviously pressed with time.

Logan Baumgartner