Jamie Larrabee's 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 believe the central audience to be the world. The tone of the entire article is casual and very explanatory.

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

The information is clear and easy to read. I like your writing style, makes me feel relaxed. Great use of pictures. However there is no sign of CO2 emission reduction or energy saved.

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

The headings are efficient in preparing me for the information following, which is on topic and unfluffed. They are a little too crammed with info though. You need to break up some of the topics for example: Maybe a header describing the RCEA experience, then another describing the energy saved followed with a graph presenting the #s, and one for money saved. Or even just make a heading expressing Retrofit Analysis and bullet point everything saved.

4.Is there a clear topic sentence for each paragraph? Do all following sentences relate to that topic sentence?

The topics are clear for each paragraph, however they are crammed withe information and need to be broken or laid out more.

5.Is the writing objective?

The writing is a tad too nonchalant, needs to be more professional. Maybe sprinkle some semicolons and splash some big words around.


The photos are clear and subtitled, which is good. However a bar graph may not be the best choice for showing a clear drop in money saved.


The graph needs to be addressed in the paragraph above it. Number the graph and address it as such. Cite your sources and make captions, people love knowing what they're looking at.


The RCEA link is not well done it needs to be shorter (not showing the actual linkage stuff). Look for proper link set-up on moodle.

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

How much energy did the bookstore save from the retrofit, along with their CO2 emission reduction levels, I’d like to see a graph describing those. Also what were the predicted savings the retrofit proposed?


The reference links need to be shortened up. Maybe some other references other than just the RCEA and some guidebook link that is unclear and untitled. TITLE LINKS, and add some that back up the information you give eg: “Fluorescent light bulbs can save a company 30% on their energy bills and are lower maintenance than incandescent fixtures.”

11.Is the document too long or short?

The web page is too short and there is not enough information on the energy saved along with the CO2 reductions.

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 warning is present but the ENGR link needs better formatting.

13.List the strengths of document -

well organized

easy to read

good pictures

14.List areas for improvement –

There needs to be a graph either presenting the CO2 emission reduction or energy save or both. The bar graph is a tad inefficient is showing a severe change in money saved on electricity. The reference links need to be fixed and it could use another reference maybe one for CFC information.


The webpage is off to a good start. Just mention the topics I mentioned above and your webpage will be complete. Make the adjustments to the paragraph organization and linkage issues and the site will be solid. Good Luck!


Brianne Reilly Peer Review[edit source]


--brianne reilly

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 think the target audience is the general public, and I think the writing is very appropriate for this audience. No confusing technical terms were used and they did a good job explaining what their page was about.

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; I wouldn’t change the layout in any way.

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 very straight forward and are good, except I think maybe the “Benefits” heading may be too vague. Both level 1 and level 2 headings are incorporated and work very well for their page.

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 paragraph has a very clear topic sentence, and all of the following sentences relate. I think they really have this part down!

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, they used no technical terms. It was very straight forward the only adjectives used were in the description of the building which I believe worked well with the website.

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 easy to understand however I might add an arrow to which bar represents the retrofits being installed.

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 does not include a figure number, but they did incorporate it into the text very well. They did cite their sources under a references title, and their photos have appropriate captions where needed.

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 reported their results as average monthly savings only. I think they need to calculate CO2 reduction, and they did not compare their findings to RCEA’s predictions. Maybe they could create a table which compares their data to RCEA’s. Also maybe they could mention the businesses investment and expected payback date.

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 only questions I have I mentioned above, what is their data compared to RCEA’s estimates. Their sources are clearly presented under 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?

They included some links however no internal links to appropedia, maybe they could do an internal link to RCEA’s appropedia page. Under the “Benefits” heading at the end of the paragraph they have a citation which links to a reference at the bottom of the page which I am not clear how it relates to the paragraph. It seems to be a useful website, I’m just not sure of the connection. Also they could include a link to the Rookery Books website if they have 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 is very short but when they address the comparisons to RCEA’s predictions I think it will lengthen it enough.

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?

Their page has all the appropriate categories. They have the banner at the top and both the Engr 115 and RCEA at the bottom.

13. List the strengths of document

At this time their appropedia page is very well organized and looks very clean and clear. Their images and format looks great and their graph shows good relevant data clearly. 14. List areas for improvement

This page will improve by including a comparison between their data calculated and RCEA’s projections for the company. They also should calculate the amount of CO2 which was offset by doing the retrofit and compare that to RCEA’s prediction.

15. Overall comments

Overall their page was very well written and well organized. Aside from the missing info they did a great job.


--Andres Pineda

Andres Pineda'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 general public is the target audience.

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; I was able to find everything easily. I recommend that the picture of Rookery Books should be centered and the graph should be centered.

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 well placed and specific and ordered.

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 in each paragraph. The sentences after are all related.

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 is some opinion sentences that should be removed where the business is described.

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?

It might be better for a photograph to be taken without the tree in the way of the business name. I think it would be better to have a line graph instead of a bar graph. The bar graph seems a bit overwhelming.

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 need to have figure numbers. Every figure does not have text to describe nor are they sited. Only 1 figure has a caption. I recommend adding captions even though it is pretty obvious what is shown.

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.

Although money savings are shown, there is no information on how much carbon dioxide emissions were saved. Another graph is required for carbon dioxide emissions.

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

Did the client change habits after the retrofits were installed? The sources were clearly presented.

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 link to other sites but there are not enough. They are not too technical but they are relevant. There is no summary of references.

11. Is the document too long or s hort? (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 too short. There are still some questions/answers that can be added under content.

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 correct banners are placed at the bottom.

13. List the strengths of document

Great paragraphs only had a few mistakes.

14. List areas for improvement

More links are needed. Try and find a link that shows the difference between fluorescent bulbs.

15. Overall comments

Only few edits are needed. More information will help the Appropedia page look great.

--Andres Pineda

Jeffrey Novoa's Peer Review[edit source]

--Jeffrey Novoa

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 the target audience was the general public, any local to the Humboldt area and anyone wanted to know about the retrofit from Rookery Books, no big terms were used to confuse the audience or readers.

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 easily and concise. There are links for the references made which is easy to find and the layout is great, the pictures along side the text is excellent to see while reading. The first Rookery Books pictures is pretty large and looks a little awkward taking up so much room, I would resize the image to a smaller size.

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 cap lock on the first two headings does not seem necessary. The other headings are very plain and not very detailed, more information in the heading explain what I am about to read is needed, not just the retrofits or the benefits. Use level two headings for smaller or subtopics on the page would be effective as well.

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 the first two paragraphs but for the rest including the benefits and retrofits there really is not a topic sentence it just dives in and tell what the benefits or retrofits are. A more descriptive topic sentence is needed for the last two 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)

The writing is somewhat objective, it seems very relaxed writing, and I believe a more professional tone is needed. Also the last sentence of the benefits paragraph seems somewhat like a sales pitch. No adjectives were really used.

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 are easy to understand, they also have captions describing what they are which is nice. The graph is somewhat confusing a bar graph might not be the best type of graph for this project; I had to look where the year started and ended to see where they didn’t have the retrofit and then the year after the retrofit. If using the bar graph maybe two are needed side by side to show the difference rather than just all of it together.

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.

They did not use figure numbers. The figures have captions which explain the pictures and have links to where they referenced which is 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.

They only addressed the savings in a monthly basis, a year savings would also be nice. They did not really talk about the carbon dioxide emissions saved at all. If they explained this as well, it would be more convincing and when explaining the months saving include which month they started and ended with for each collection of data.

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 carbon dioxide emissions saved. The yearly savings. Yes the sources are clearly presented at the end under 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?

There are not any links, more links are needed to describe more about the retrofit or something about carbon dioxide emissions. Anything to relate to the appropedia page is needed.

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 page is pretty short, I think a longer background and intro is needed, maybe more questions and responses from the owner and include the carbon dioxide emissions saved.

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 does have the banner of ENGR 115 at the bottom and RCEA.

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

• Good use of pictures and incorporating them into the page.

• Good use of captions for the pictures and explain what they are.

• Enjoyed the explanation of what type of lights were used at this business.

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

• Better Graph

• Longer and more detailed page

• More headings and more descriptive headings telling us what you are going to talk about.

• Links to related subjects to this page.

• Yearly savings from the retrofit

• Carbon Dioxide from the retrofit

• No CAPS in the headings.


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

Good page, much work is needed, but good first draft, longer page with a little more information will turn into a excellent page.