Daylene Miyahara's Comments[edit source]

Daylene Miyahara

  • 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 seems to be anyone interested in retrofitting or making changes to save energy and money. I believe it is appropriate.

2.) Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout?

  • The information is very easy to navigate. The layout works, but the middle of the report may not be the best place for such a long, paraphrased interview.

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 and are in a logical order. They allow for the appropriate information to be clearly communicated and understood. The only suggestions I have would be to have the written analysis closer to the conclusions, and have the references separate from the conclusions.

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 used effectively for all paragraphs. The data analysis is not in paragraph form and therefore does not have a topic sentence, but I would suggest using bullets when including data in list form.

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, communicating data, results, and supported conclusions.

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 graphs and tables are easy to read and make the information very easy to understand. Good juxtapositions of data from before/after the retrofits. I would suggest another graphic showing the difference in projections and outcomes, but it would have to be distinctly labeled because too many tables could be confusing.

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 in the text are clear and the source is informally sited at the bottom of the page. The way the results figures are arranged, they should have bullets. You could better incorporate the figures with a data table, comparing the expected savings with actual savings.

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.

  • As it is now, the “bottom line” data is kind of hiding under a large bar graph within sentences. This data is important and should be more prominent on your page. You could better incorporate the figures with a data table, comparing the expected savings with actual savings.

9.) Are there any questions you have about the topic that are not addressed? Are the sources of the information clearly presented under “References”?

  • When you say you are not sure why the savings were less than expected, it is unsatisfactory for the reader. Try to draw conclusions and include this information.

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?

  • I did not find any related sites on the page besides the links to the ENGR115 and RCEA energy audit reviews Categories. I would suggest setting up links to RCEA’s website and perhaps Dr. Benoit’s website if he has one.

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 may be a little short. I would suggest expanding the analysis and perhaps adding background information on RCEA.

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 banner and categories are correct and are easily located. 13. List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)

  • The document provides well-organized, relevant information. It is easily readable and navigable, and the graphs and tables allow for clear results, analysis, and conclusions.

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

  • The central part of the page is a long, paraphrased interview. It is good information to have, but maybe moving the interview to a different spot on the page or making it shorter would make the overall informative quality stronger. Technical writing can be expanded especially in the conclusion.

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

  • This is a solid webpage with a solid table of contents and solid information. Good job.

Daylene Miyahara

Dylan McGurk's 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.

Anyone who is interested in the retrofits that were done there. Also it seemed geared towards RCEA, what I mean is that it answered everything they wanted to know.

2.Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout?

It was easy to navigate. It had a strong chronological order to it, in order of what I wanted to know.

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 only thing I would change is that I would put in more level two heading. I’m used to a heading for “data” and then sub headings for the different types of data.

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 to relate to the information very well but I would avoid starting the sentences with “Richard E Benoit.

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 not distracting in anyway. It is too the point and there is not clutter within the paragraphs.

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?

One of your concerns was that your pictures were being developed so I won’t touch on that but I really like the size of your graphs. They are quite easy to read and make sense.


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 understand the figures but there are not sites. The figures are described well though.

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 did. They have very nice graphs depicting “gains and loses.”

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 but since I also did one I understand where the information is coming from.

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 external links at all.

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?

For what we need to know I would say it’s just right, besides the lack of references and external links.

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 and yes.

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

It is a great length and to the point. It is strait forward and easy to navigate.

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

It is incomplete. It needs references and other links. This was hard for me but the very beginning could look better with a picture of the business placed in a spot that looks visually pleasing.

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

Good amount of information and I can tell you spent a good amount of time on this. The graphs were very nice also.

dylan.mcgurk


Lynette Villagomez's 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. The target audience for this page is for those who know about the RCEA retrofit process. There is info lacking about what RCEA does as an organization to help business’s reduce their energy consumption. Under “site and retrofit description” there is mention of a survey, but if the reader has no idea what RCEA does, they may not know what type of survey you’re referring to.

2.Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout? The page and information is well organized and easy to navigate. It is easy to find info because there is no excess text. I don’t think I would change the format the text is in since each header makes it easy to distinguish what I’m reading.

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 headers are used well. Break up of information is well organized with headers. A logical order is followed and is easy for the reader to follow the process and information. Could have broken up “Site and Retrofit Description” into two parts as subheadings under one broader level one heading, and gone into more detail about both. There are no level two headings. Each heading tells the reader exactly what will be discussed in each 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. Each topic sentence is clear and concise. Each sentence relates to the topic sent. Under the “Site and Retrofit Description” section you could break it up into two parts discussing what RCEA did what the process was and a description of the site. In the background of the business some of that info could have been addressed in the description of the business site.

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; I found no instances of subjective writing. The only opinions that were given were those of the client. 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? Each figure/table/graph is clearly labeled and easy to follow. The data is organized well. Could have put in table with comparisons of what was predicted by RCEA and what you actually found based on the energy bill you analyzed.

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 text does not refer to the figures, tables or graphs that are displayed on the page. There are no sources cited for the data, or captions for the tables. Possibly could have said based on the info from the energy bill that was analyzed and then referred the tables that are on the page. And in the paragraph referring to estimated saving you could have mentioned something to the effect that the data is displayed graphically above.

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 clearly stated. Good use of comparison to what RCEA predicted and what you actually found. This info was displayed in paragraph format, tables, and graphically which was very thorough.

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 a little more investigation into what may have altered RCEA’s savings predictions other than price increase. How did you find out there was a price increase, a reference to kWh prices and schedules. What energy rate is the dentistry office being charged at (A1)?

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 links to any related site. It may have been useful for the reader to have a link to RCEA directly and if the client has a webpage a link to that also. Maybe some links to references so people could find out what the difference is between the lights types of lights that were retrofitted and a link to explain what a ballast is.

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 good length. There is not too much info that the reader will become distracted. There is just enough content to inform the reader about the energy 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 does contain the progress banner and categories as required.

13.List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) The tables with data collected before and after the retrofit on the page are very useful for the reader to make their own conclusions. The graph is easy to read, the color contrast is good.

14.List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) There were some spelling errors, i.e. the RCEA acronym was jumbled in the section under the bar graph. The table and graphs are very informative. It would have been nice to see some pictures of the lighting that was retrofitted and of the client’s practice.

15.Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors) Good display of information and data. Well organized page. Straight to the point.

Lynette Villagomez[edit source]

Marley DeLlamas' 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 this page appears to be anyone interested in what an RCEA retrofit will do for one’s business. 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 I don’t know if a paraphrased interview is the best way to present the information. Personally I’d summarize it in a paragraph about the client’s experience. 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. Yes the headings are used successfully and seem to be in a logical order. Reference and Conclusion should be in two separate 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. Most of the topic sentences are clear and relate to the subject of the paragraph. The topic sentence under the “Client Interview” section could be more descriptive. 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. There are good graph and data tables which are clearly shown. 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 figures are easy to understand. Including photographs of the newly installed fluorescent lights would benefit the page. 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 the writer does not refer to the figure using figure numbers. The numbers regarding energy and money savings shown in the figures are well described in the text. Captions under the tables would be helpful. 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. A table showing RCEA predicted costs and energy savings per month, as well as how the calculations made would be beneficial to the page. It may not be beneficial to RCEA though since their estimates did not pan out to be as large as expected. 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’m curious to know why the predictions were so off. I would also like to see what the old and new fixtures looked like, as well as any available technical information regarding the fixtures. The site description mentions removing the old incandescent bulbs and ‘ballasts’, but incandescent fixtures do not have a ballast. Were they really removing old fluorescent fixtures? 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 provided on the page. Perhaps a link to a page describing the benefits of fluorescent over incandescent lights. Also a link to RCEA’s homepage should be included. 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 a little short. Again, the projected savings calculations should be discussed. 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 both categories and the banner are displayed.


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

The tables and the graph are clear. Background and retrofit information is good.


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

The interview isn’t the best way to provide information. Adding pictures and captions would give the webpage more of a ‘face’ to go with the project


15. Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors) The graphs are very nice and a lot of information for a first draft. Good start.