Bobby Voeks' 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.
I feel the page is supposed to target a high school and beyond level of knowledge, most likely business owners and home owners. This was more of a college level page. Maybe define some terms: ballast, retrofit, RCEA.
2. Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout?
It is easy to navigate and has a very straight forward layout, except for the huge gap after the graph.
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 got the point across and were in a logical order.
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 clear topic sentences for each paragraph, and they are elaborated on.
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 did not catch any outstanding bias or opinion.
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 date labels on the graph are kind of hard to read. The page says the retrofit was done in July 2006, but the graph says it was done in 2007. It might help to separate before and after the retrofit on the graph, as well as include a total cost for each individual year
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, citations, or in text description. There were captions attached to the pictures that described them. Perhaps they should be labeled with in text references to them when appropriate. Do they need citations if they took the pictures?
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 point of the study was definitely expressed. The actual vs. predicted was stated in a non bounded table format. I felt it was easy to understand. Maybe making a table that stands out would be more attractive.
I would like to see the actual recorded costs and energy use of the year before and after the retrofit. I would also like to see how much the business spent on the retrofit and how long it took, or will take them, to earn it back.
9. Are there any questions you have about the topic that are not addressed? Are the sources of the information clearly presented under “References”?
Maybe introduce who RCEA, what they do, and why.
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 is a Ramone’s bakery web page link, which is absolutely relevant. Add some more links, perhaps to the RCEA page when it is cited in text.
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 seems to be an appropriate 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?
It has the banner and correct categories.
13. List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
The page is very informative and to the point. I didn’t notice any spelling errors. The page looks like a draft, but not too far from a final product.
14. List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
The graph is in need of some work to ease navigation and increase it’s appeal. There are some strange lines, maybe check out sentences for grammar (missing commas). Was the retrofit done in 2006 or 2007? The overall layout is nice but detail work is needed before final submission. I didn’t see the group’s names anywhere.
15. Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors)
Good work given your partner/company issues.
--bav9
Andrew Collins-Anderson's Peer Review[edit source]
Contact Information: adc37@humboldt.edu
Names of Writers: Trevor Hash, Jacob Hauck
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 audience will be those interested in doing a retrofit with RCEA, and local community members. I feel that there should be more explanation of words, but also some more detail in content.
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, but there the retrofit section is a little convoluted. Maybe less headings. I am not too sure on this one.
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 feel that the headings are used appropriately except for the retrofit explanation. There seems to be too many headings here. Maybe use the next smaller type of heading. I think having the notes at the top is occurred, and there should be more in the section. If you only have kWh here just put it in the text.
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 writing is good. I feel that you could possibly shorten the retrofit explanation, and create a more solid findings and data analysis. The writing is fine however.
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 isn’t totally objective, but I feel like you are properly representing your interview with Berit.
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 feel like you have good pictures. You need to reference your pictures. The table is lacking however. I believe you should create a comparison type of table or graph where the change in energy use is correlated by month. You could also have several tables and perhaps a table showing the energy savings instead of just text. This is not that important.
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.
You do not refer to the figures which would be good. The figures are not numbered either. You did not cite the use of the information provided by RCEA. You should have captions explaining your figures. Your title for your table could be more descriptive and the time frame should show the change of energy use over one year.
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.
You have shown this, but maybe the calculations would be helpful. Explain maybe how energy use relates to carbon dioxide use and mass.
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 reference section could be better formatted, and there are some missing references. I feel like you covered everything else however.
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?
You may be able to add some more links. Maybe to RCEA’s website. This is a little technical, but not very bad.
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?
This document is not too long too short.
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?
You have the required heading and category.
13. List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
This page is visually very appealing and you represent the business owner very well. The information provided about why and how the retrofit took place is good. You have done a good job a on the findings, and show the estimates done by RCEA are accurate.
14. List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
You have left some messy stuff at the bottom of the page this should be cleaned up. You should improve your figures, and include a reference for the information. You could possibly add the calculations of the energy reduction.
15. Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors)
This is a very good start to the project. There are some minor changes that should be made, and possibly more in-depth analysis of the data, but you are on your way. Considering the issues you stated in the memo you have done a great job!
Colin Stewart's Peer Review[edit source]
Name of Editor: Colin Stewart
Contact Information: ccs31@humboldt.edu
Names of Writers: Trevor Hash
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.
RCEA associates and anyone who may be interested in Ramon’s Bakery or energy conservation.
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 but there seem to be some oddly large spaces possibly due to your picture layout.
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 seem fine for what is presented.
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 seem to lacking if not absent. Your topic sentence should introduce each paragraph and give you an idea about where the paragraph is going. I think that you should read over all of your paragraphs with this in mind and try to come up with more informative topic sentences.
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 whole project seems very casual without much technical information presented. You also have some information presented as being unsure. Maybe consider weather you can accurately present it in fact or take it out.
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 a good visual. The other pictures do not really convey any useful information but they do make the page more aesthetic. I don’t exactly know where our priorities should be on this.
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 pictures are not referred to in the text but there are captions that explain what the picture is of.
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 looks good and the information is presented clearly. You may think about explaining the reasons for this cost decrease. 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 would be interested in what the “better more efficient” light bulbs are. There are lots of different kinds of light bulbs, which ones tend to be more energy efficient for which situations?
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?
Again I think there is a need for more technical info which there are no links to. The only link is that of the bakery.
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 think that this is still to short but if you add the technical information previously brought up I think it will round out nicely.
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?
These are both addressed and look good.
13. List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
I think your strength would be the looks at this time. Everything is very direct and understandable.
14. List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
There is not much information involved yet. The basic facts are there but there isn’t really any supporting information on the topic of these retrofits and energy saving.
15. Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors)
I understand that you had some difficulties getting going and this page wasn’t considered at completion. Hopefully I have still given you some insight that would add to whatever you’re idea of the final project was