Name of Editor:Tim Kukuk Contact Information: tkukuk@humboldt.edu Names of Writers: Elizebeth Gutierrez, Lynette Villagomez
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 would be someone interested in the audit in general or interested in retrofits of their own, I think the writing is appropriate for the audience
2. Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout?
I might reduce the size of 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.
Headings have good flow, there are tense differences in the retrofit headings. Could say “cost reduction” rather than “energy bill reduction”.
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 are good. Analysis of retrofit could be expanded. Sections 2.1 & 2.2 could have clearer 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)
Good job in this area, no bias or opinion shows in this report.
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?
As mentioned in the memo the graph has some labeling problems, as mentioned above it could be smaller. Maybe a larger main pic of the store would look good.
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.
Figures are referred to in the text, all three are tables, don’t know whether they need captions, could maybe have some colors, they convey the info, maybe a tad unremarkable.
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.
Excellent job in this area, reader will get a clear idea of bottom line.
9. Are there any questions you have about the topic that are not addressed? Are the sources of the information clearly presented under “References”?
All areas seem to be addressed, it appears most information gathered was from RCEA and the business itself.
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?
Mostly good in this area, could consider removing the latter three links in section 2.
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?
Length seems appropriate.
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 items are in place
13. List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
Information is complete, and shown by example in tables. Headings flow very well and body of page is laid out nicely. Bottom line is clear and shown in tables.
14. List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) Again graph could be smaller or thumbnailed, could possibly add a larger main picture. Section 3.1 needed two readings to determine what was being said, could possible shorten or clear up.
15. Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors) Addressing specific input questions the charts/tables are easy to understand but unremarkable. Would prefer the graph as a thumbnail. Titles seem relevant to each section.
Brent Sanders Comment[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.
This is directed to someone who is looking for information on techniques to save energy for their business
2. Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout?
Yes, I am able to scan through the document and quickly find things such as before and after costs
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 clear, and the content within each heading is reflected by the heading title and on topic. 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.
Yes, each paragraph stays on topic, but there is some excess info (do I need to know that ScrappersEdge is based on an A1 rate? ) also, significant figures is an issue, I feel that I don’t need to know the rate to 5 decimal places.
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 document is objective throughout
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 retro fit is described as low cost, but low cost to one isn’t the same to another. Try to stick to a comparison so the reader can make the judegment themselves.
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 are referred to in the text, but caption description would make these figures easier to relate the image to an idea without needing to read the entire text. Put figure citations (fig.1, fig. 2 .. etc) as captions also. The graph is a good size, but start the y axis at 1500 instead of 0. Also the x-axis labels should be changes. Restrict the x-axis to stop where your data stops, cut out the blank space.
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.
Yes, all the necessary numbers and tables are presented in a clear fashion. Again, move the Figure # to a caption box below the image.
9. Are there any questions you have about the topic that are not addressed? Are the sources of the information clearly presented under “References”?
No questions. Yes, the sources are cited at the end of the page.
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, many links and references are used in a useful way throughout the page.
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 about 2.5 pages long, with lots of good info. Review the content carefully, there is a sentence or two every few paragraphs that can be cut down, combined or eliminated.
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.)
I think that someone looking for a writeup on what businesses are doing to save energy would find this page very useful. The figures are easy to understand and help the reader pick up info quickly."""
14. List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
Elaborate on the retrofit process and the savings.
Tidy up the paragraphs, some content can be boiled down a little.
15. Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors)
Great job, I enjoyed reading this page, I think it’s a good contribution to this project.
Curran Hamiltons Peer Review[edit source]
--Curran 19:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
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 that the language could be for an average person or for someone who wants the nitty gritty details of the energy audit.
2. Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout?
There is a lot of information on the page and it is slightly hard to find everything but in general it works 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.
The headings are fairly successful but perhaps some of the titles for the sections could be named more accurately or more descriptively named
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.
Yes there are clear topic sentences and most if not all following sentences relate to the topic sentence
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.
It very clearly does not relate the writers to the project, which is good.
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?
They are mostly easy to under stand but some of them have incorrect numbers. Table 3 is average co2 emissions and the units are lbs/year except the last number is in kw/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.
The tables have numbers and are mentioned in the text, the pictures of the business are mentioned but do not have numbers and neither does the graph
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 have presented the info except for the estimated reduction of co2 post retrofit which should be in lbs per year but is in kW per year. There is also a graph.
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 only two sources cited and both have 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 no related sites except for the two sources.
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 might be a bit too long because of the huge amounts of content. I'm not sure if there is any content that should be taken out
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 all the banners and catagories.
13. List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
It is very well written, has lots of content and addresses all points.
14. List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
Besides the ones mentioned above, try to cut out any extraneous content to make it closer to 3 pages.
15. Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors)
Very well written.
--Curran 19:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Daniel Johnson's Peer Review[edit source]
dkj9 Name of Editor: Daniel Johnson Contact Information: Dkj9@humboldt.edu Names of Writers: Elizabeth Gutierrez, Lynette Villagomez
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 targeted is anyone who has an interest in the cost benefit of installing energy efficient lighting.
2. Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout?
The information is clearly presented, and is organized in an effective manner. Some paragraphs could be broken down into subtopics of subtopics to make the information easier to navigate.
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. All of the information under the headings stays on topic, and the headings are arranged in the best order; not many changes to headings are needed. 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.
Every paragraph appears to have a clear topic sentence, and the information in the paragraph stays on topic. Some paragraphs contain a lot of information could be organized into separate paragraphs and 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 webpage remains consistently objective, there are no personal opinions and information provided is clearly cited.
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 tables are presented clearly and are easy to interpret. The graph is a little confusing because of the addition of vending machines over time, so it makes the information displayed in the graph hard to interpret.
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 do not incorporate figure numbers, nor do they list sources. Captions are provided under the images and is done so in a clear manner.
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.
There are numerous tables and a graph displaying the projected savings/emissions compared to actual savings/emissions. They are all well formatted and I do not see much to improve.
9. Are there any questions you have about the topic that are not addressed? Are the sources of the information clearly presented under “References”?
Under the “Reference” section you may want to cite your personal interview with the business owner, as well as the cost reports. If you have information on the total cost it could be added.
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?
This webpage uses links to internal and external sources, and there seems to be a sufficient amount of links.
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 do not see any material that could be omitted, but it would be nice to include the total cost if you possess that information.
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 both categories are used.
All are present.
13. List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
Well organized, numerous tables and graphs, contains a lot of information, all of the information is useful to someone interested in this topic.
14. List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
Include citations for all the information used, state total cost.
15. Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors)
Overall the page is presented efficiently and effectively, there only seems to be a few minor alterations needed for this page.