Elizabeth Gutierrez's Comments[edit source]
Elizabethg1990 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 believe that the target audience for this webpage is businesses in Humboldt County that might be interested in having their business retrofitted by RCEA and businesses that have worked with RCEA themselves and wanted to see how other businesses felt about the retrofits. You may want to check your grammar to seem more professional.
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 in a format that is very easy to navigate through, if I had to quickly find a piece of information from this site I am confident that I wouldn’t have trouble. The only thing I would work on would be the headings/titles, the first and last need work (I’ll talk about them in the next 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. Most of the headings were used successfully but some could use some improvement. The first heading should be changed to something including the business’ name and let the reader know what they are to expect in that section. The heading of “Background” does not tell the reader what that section is about, though if you changed it to something like: “About Restif Cleaning Services,” the reader would understand that in this section they will be learning about the business. It is also important to include the business name in the heading because the given title of the page: “RCEA energy audit reviews/Restif Cleaning Service” is not super clear if someone was just looking quickly to find what business you were presenting. The last heading: “Afterthought” sounds as if you forgot part of your webpage and couldn’t find anywhere to put it so you just made a section for little tid bits of information that you forgot to include. After reading the section I understand what you meant by it but when I first read it, I thought that it was just a section you threw in at the last second. I would change this section title to something like, “Post Retrofit Regards” or something that tells the reader that this section will include the business’ feelings toward the retrofit (sorry I couldn’t come up with a better example title, its just not coming to me right now). Also, I would change the heading “Cost Analysis” to “Retrofit Analysis” because you are performing an analysis on more than just their energy cost, you are also examining their energy usage and CO2 emissions. All the headings seem to be a very logical order and easy to follow. All of the level two headings look good to me, the only thing I noticed was that you forgot a question mark on the second one in the retrofit section.
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. Although most of your information was presented in either one sentence or very small paragraphs, all paragraphs had a clear topic sentence and all following sentences followed that topic sentence. For the information provided, I cannot think of any improvements.
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) Most all of the writing was object, there would only be a few words I would change. I would consider a different word choice than “eventually” in the first paragraph because when people hear “eventually” they usually think of “it took forever” or “they finally got around to it after a long period of time,” I know what you meant by it, but I would change the word to something else. I would also remove the words “installed all new” in the first sentence and change it to “performed,” this avoids the use of the words “all” and “new” and sounds more objective. I would also remove the word “basically” in the retrofit section under the “what is a retrofit” sub-heading. This makes the writing sound too informal. I would also revise the first sentence in the very next sub-heading: “Restif Cleaning service had almost all new lighting retrofits…” there are just too many adjectives in that sentence. I would remove the word “new” from your entire web page; it is not used in an efficient manor for technical writing. I would also advise this sentence from the last section of “The Retrofit”: “When they were proposed with the Redwood Coast Energy Authority's retrofits, they willingly accepted because they knew (they could not know unless they could see the future, change this to “believed”) their customers would see the real difference.” Under the Savings section remove “lets,” technical writing is not supposed to be in first person, you need to change that to third person point of view.
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? If there is any way, it would be wonderful if all of your images/diagrams could be bigger. It is kind of annoying to have to go through the extra step of clicking on your images to make them bigger and then your graphs still aren’t big enough to read correctly once you click on them. Also, it would be beneficial to mark on your graphs where the retrofit happened, so the reader can easily see where in the graph the difference should show. You need to fix the dates on the x-axis so they are easier to read as well. In addition, below the x-axis, you should label the axis as “Time (September 2006-2007)” So that way the reader can easily understand that the x-axis refers to time and that the numbers 9/07 means September 2007. Also, it confused me at first why there were two graphs and then I looked closer and understood that one graph is for the first year of data and the second graph is for the second year of data, I think it would be much clearer if you were to put both lines on one graph, have the y-axis the same but the x-axis labeled in months and the lines for each year colored differently and labeled on the side which color refers to what year. This way the data for the years lay on top of one another and you can easily see a difference in energy consumption.
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. I did not notice anywhere on your page a reference to your images/graphs. The figures were present but not refered to. I also did not notice any sources cited. Most of the figures do have effective captions though, all except for the two graphs. For the pictures, I would label them as figures and then refer to them in the text where relevant. For example, when talking about the lighting retrofit mention the photo of the retrofitted lights on the right.
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 “bottom line” was presented very clearly and concise, it was easy to understand, the only improve that could be made is in the graph as regarded earlier.
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 think it would be best if you told the reader when the retrofit happened, how long the entire process took, and how you mathematically got your answers. Establish credibility and tell the reader briefly how you performed your analysis, so they know you didn’t just pull the numbers out of a hat.
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? Yes the author provides links to related sites and I would say in a very effective manner. There seems to be just enough and are suitable for the project. All sites are very relevant to the project. But there is no summary of references at the end, if I needed a link quickly I would have to scan through the whole page to find 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? I think the document might be too short, I think there is room for a lot more information. These authors seemed to produce the bare basics. I think it would be a good idea to add more to their page by adding information about: • How the business found out about the retrofit and how they were presented with the information. • How the process of the installation of the retrofit went. Was it quick? Were the workers respectful and easy to work with? What happened to the old lights, were they recycled, thrown out, or something else? Etc. • How you performed your analysis. What equations did you use to get the cost, energy, and CO2 savings that you got? How did RCEA get their estimates? How do your methods vary? How could this vary affect the difference between the estimated and the outcome? Etc. • How the business feels toward the retrofit now that time has passed. How does the business feel towards RCEA? Would they recommend this retrofit to other businesses? Have they already recommended this to other businesses? Etc. These are just ideas, I hope they help.
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 is present and yes, the page has the correct categories at the end of the page.
13.List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
It is very clearly stated information and easy to navigate through.
Good logical use of headings, only wording needs to be improved.
14.List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
Images/graphs need improvement (statement in above box about this goes into more detail).
More information is needed.
Very slight proof reading needs to be done to just have sentences flow better and appear more professional.
15.Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors) I really hope this helped, I don’t mean to bash on your page, and I just wanted to give you plenty of feedback so you can get the best grade possible. I think your page has a lot of potential. Good luck! =] Elizabethg1990
Chet Jamgochian's Commets[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 anyone who is interested in a similar retrofit and possibly RCEA. This is an appropriate target audience.
2. Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout? Yes the information provided is easy to navigate. The graphs should be bigger. Not as thumbnails. [[File:graph.jpg]] rather than an image gallery.
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 used successfully and are specific. The “Cost Analysis” only refers to savings so maybe change it to “Savings” Don’t bold the headings. They stand out enough on their own. Try some level two headings see how it looks.
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 aren’t really paragraphs. The sentences to apply to the header they are under though. You might want to bulk up on the writing a little bit. Expand on what your saying. For example on the background information you might talk more about the business, how they use energy, their history… It just seems like there should be more to say.
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 it is 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? Your pictures are all good. The only thing is the graphs. They should be much bigger.
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 reference to the figures in the text. The graphs are not described with their 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. You clearly expressed these numbers just not in a table or a graph. You might try doing both these things and see if it adds to your page.
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 are no references. Im not sure if you needed to do additional research but if you did use other sources you should cite them.
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 links work fine. You might try making the RCEA linked to the appropedia page instead [[RCEA]] That’s up to you though. There isn’t much to be technical about. Everything is clear and makes sense. The sites are relevant. There is no summery of references.
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 seems too short. You really don’t say much. You might try including your data in a table. Talk about your process maybe. There really isn’t much to say about replacing 21 light fixtures but try to spice it up more. Why are the new lights better? Why were the old lights bad? You have to get creative with things to talk about.
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 layout is good. It is easy to follow. The cost analysis is the strongest part of your page.
14. List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) Could be more in depth. The page just seems to be lacking body and substance. The graphs need to be way bigger on the page. This will add a lot to the entire feel of the page. The cost analysis is the strongest part of your page. Try putting the cost analysis in a table and see if that stands out more.
15. Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors) I can see that you might not have had much to work with on this particular subject as the business only changed some light bulbs. There isn’t much to say about that. However overall it really seems to be lacking. The page is supposed to be 2-3 pages long. I would say yours is about halfway there.
Annie Bartholomew's Comments[edit source]
1. Who do you feel is the target audience for the writing in this document? The writing is appropriate, but the sentence structure looses the technical aspect in some parts. They are marked in the page.
2. Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout? I would make it less choppy. Put quantities of energy and money in bullet points, put everything else including explanations in paragraph form.
3. Are headings used successfully? Are enough headings used? Headings as questions aren’t the best. I would get rid of half of them including “What is a retrofit” and combine them into larger sections. Section One: Introduction, Section Two: Energy Analysis, Section Three: Conclusion.
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 wasn’t a single paragraph on your web page. Follow the three headings I proposed, first defining what a retrofit is, followed by what retrofits were performed. Energy Analysis will start with the fact that they did not save as much money as proposed.
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) There wasn’t a lot of writing in this. I felt like it was a skeleton and work in progress. For the bare minimum, it was 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? Nice pictures, especially of the lights, but they could be made a lot bigger.
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. I did not read any references to the figures beyond bullet points.
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 information is bullet pointed, but a table could be more effective. The reader must know that the retrofits were not as efficient as predicted. You may also want to investigate why they were not and address this in that section.
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 didn’t see a “References” section, this could be placed at the end.
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 were no links to related sites. This is a pretty big component.
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 is too short. I would start by organizing it into three sections ( plus references and related links) and taking language directly from your memo.
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? Banner and correct categories present.
13.List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) The page addresses all basic parts of the assignment.
14. List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) Put your information into paragraph form. Do more investigation into how the retrofits work, what exactly were they, and start filling up space. I feel like your draft was a good outline, but far from a final product. A lot of work in layout and content is ahead.
15. Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors) Just stay technical and tell the reader exactly what they need to know. Be concise and address all questions that could come up. A reader is going to want to know why they didn’t save as much money on retrofits, if you don’t have the answer, include that. The page should literally answer all questions for them.
Heather Baker'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.
I feel the target audience of this page is anyone interested in learning more about RCEA’s work with local companies, anyone looking at commercial retrofits to get an idea for their own business or a person conducting research on the issue.
2. Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout?
Most information is easy to navigate. I did have a question about a sentence in the purpose for the retrofit. You mention that Restif opted for the retrofit because the customers would see the “real difference”. I felt that was a bit vague and not too sure what the real difference means. If it is the difference in general the customers would see, then “real” is a dangling modifier of-sorts here. I like the “afterthought” area but I wonder how professional that is as opposed to simply using “conclusion.” Aside from this, there are projected and actual figures, which is helpful. Pictures of the installation are helpful as well.
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 successfully. So far, enough headings are used. I think both writers will probably write more on their page, as the page seems short, so more categories will be on the way. The category headings seem to be in logical order. Under “cost analysis” I might make the “savings” heading a little larger, since it is the same size as the text contained underneath it. In fact, you could even remove it entirely, as there is nothing else under that heading aside from the captions. Or even make “projected vs. actual” or something along those lines.
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.
This is not so much a paragraph type of page. It is more a question-response set-up, so the sentences follow the question. I like this set-up, I wonder if you thought about adding more of a paragraph type set-up. Although what you have currently might work better for this particular assignment and information being conveyed.
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 and there is neither bias nor opinion contained in the webpage.
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?
All pictures are easy to understand. I would try and make captions 1 and 2 larger, if possible
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 references to figures because the page does not call for them necessarily. Each figure has captions. There are no citations, so maybe these photos can be 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’ names are not presented at the bottom, but money and CO2 emissions saved are presented.
Try maybe a side by side analysis of projected savings to actual savings, perhaps in a 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”?
I was wondering about why there is such a difference between the projected and actual savings. There are no references, but I am sure there is more work to be done and there will be a references section soon.
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 link to Restif itself. I would add a link to the type of lighting that was installed, in case someone wants to read more about it. There are too few links, but I don’t know what else they could really add links to. The relevance of the link is clear; it’s the business that had the retrofit. There is no summary of references.
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 a little short. Why did Restif have an enjoyable and positive experience with RCEA? Was passing on the savings from the retrofits the sole reason Restif went ahead with the retrofits? I think you could probably elaborate on some areas of the page to make the page longer.
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 is a progress banner and an ENGR 115 category and an RCEA category as well.
13. List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
The page provides a good analysis of the retrofit used for Restif. There are helpful pictures and the projected and actual savings was exciting to view.
14. List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
There were a few spelling errors. I think the writers are still working on adding to their page and so it seems somewhat short. Try to elaborate in some areas.
15. Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors)
So far, a good job was done.