Talk:RCEA energy audit reviews/Tailwaggers Thrift Shop

From Appropedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Savage.daniele

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 appears to be any individual interested in the energy retrofit. The audience does not need to know any prior knowledge to be able to understand the page.

2. Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout?
The layout is very nice. It is easy to navigate thought the sections of the page. The information is easy to find but making some of the answers to the specific questions and important terms bold could really help make the information easier to find. This will make it easier for skimmers.

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 almost perfect. The only change would be to add level three headings for each graph. For example, add a level three headings that say something like “The Energy Usage Graph” and “The Expense Graph.”

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 paragraphs have very clear topic sentences, except for the “Understanding the Graphs” section. The wording here is a little confusing and the topic sentences need to be a little more specific. The first paragraph under “Understanding the Graphs” may need a new topic sentence before the current one.

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 language is a little too fluffy. The writing could be filtered to just state the facts or the specifics could be emphasized by making the important facts bold.

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 should be full sized, not thumbnails. This will allow the reader to fully interpret the graphs without having to navigate away from the main page. The information may be better presented by using scatter plots with a trend line. The bar graphs are hard to follow.

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.
Figure numbers are used successfully and each figure has a caption, except for the first picture. The first picture should have a caption.

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 presented but could be presented more efficiently by switching the graph type to a scatter plot with a trend 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 questions have been addressed.

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, links are presented. Both the links could be combined into one link of the Sequoia Humane Society homepage.

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 a good 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?
Yes.

Strengths
• Great headers and sub headings
• All information included
• Very clear
• Easy navigation
• Great flow


Improvements
• Bigger pictures
• Make specifics bold to make easier to find
• Use a different type of graph


Overall Comments
Great job! The website looks great visually and has excellent flow. Language could be a little more specific and the graphs could use some work. The pictures are fantastic... so make them bigger!

Savage.daniele

fbalex


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 for this document is anyone who is interesting in the success of an energy audit and retrofit, and anyone who is specifically interested in the one at Tailwaggers.

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 legible and easy to navigate. The layout was done overall very well and I don't have any major suggestions for improvement.

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 headings are accurate and look good, they are specific and I like the secondary bold headings. I'm not sure why you needed to describe the Sequoia Humane society, because it wasnt part of your project unless the retrofit was also including the humane society which I did not quite grasp.

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 fine, and all your information follows it. You could improve your topic sentences by writing one, then writing your paragraph, and then going back to make sure the topic sentence fits the best or if a different one would be better. As far as I can tell they all work though

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)

This writing is for the most part objective, there is a section where you say "reap the benefits," in which i would suggest using a more appropriate word than reap. Also on the bottom take out the adjective "strange" and maybe find something more appropriate to technical writing. Strangeness is perceived and not a solid idea.

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 graphs are far too small and I do not like their design. I think a scatter plot graph would be far more appropriate, starting from the initial data and going until the most recent data, using only one line with price as your y-axis and time as the x-axis.

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.

All of the pictures are fine, just maybe add a caption to the first one.

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 presented the information very well, I suggest no improvements as it was very easy to understand.

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 have no questions that aren't answered.

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 are fine but another link the RCEA homepage for these audits would be good.

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 length is just fine.

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 it has these.

13. List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
The document is well organized and precise. I understood all of the information and it needs little editing

14. List areas for improvement
– (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
Change your graphs and make them larger and easier to read

15. Overall comments
– (Any feedback for the authors)
Great job on the assignment, it was very well done and needs little editing.
fbalex

Tahsa Sturgis' Peer Review:
[edit source]

Tahsa.Sturgis

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 is anyone interested in energy savings or just someone interested in RCEA projects. The writing style seems to fit 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 layout is easy to navigate and it is fairly easy to find information. Some of the information is not very straight forward and you could benefit from making key points stand out better by using concise and clear language and put important information in bold.

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 very well and the order fits the information needed to be presented. This part of the page is solid.

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 are all clear except for Understanding the Graphs and Understanding the Table. They are little unclear and there doesn’t seem to be a topic sentence for Understanding the table. Improving these two areas might help with the overall presentation of your page.

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 a little wishy washy and could benefit from a more straight forward approach. Presenting the facts in a clear manner could improve the legitimacy of your page and make the page flow better overall.

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 pictures are very nice and the figures go well with your data. I would say the figures are a little difficult to understand, but the biggest thing is that both the pictures and the figures are too small. Making them larger will allow readers to read your page and look at the graphs at the same time without being redirected to a larger image of the thumbnail.

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.

Great job of doing this. Reference to your pictures and figures happens a few times within your page. All the pictures have captions and the correct figure numbers. The only one that doesn’t is the first caption, but that can be easily fixed.

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 data is there, but the graph used makes the data a little hard to follow. A scatter plot might improve this and you could point out parts were savings occurred.

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 because the information answered them all. References are at the bottom under references, but more could be used.

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?

Links are provided at the bottom. However, more links are needed, there are only two and they are from the same site. I would include more links within the page on key words to help pull the reader into your page. A couple links to outside sources might help this.

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 on the short side. I’m not sure what else you could add though. Maybe some editing and rewriting could lengthen your paper or you could include something other relevant information you found while doing this project.

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 ENGR 115 banner and the correct category appears at the bottom of the page.


13.List the strengths of document:

  • Quality information about Energy Savings
  • Good overall layout
  • Nice pictures with captions
  • Good headings

14.List areas for improvement

  • More straight forward language
  • Larger pictures and figures that are easier to read
  • Some editing within the writing
  • More References
  • Need links to other sources within text
  • Highlight key points

15.Overall comments

The page has a good layout and has quality information about energy savings associated with the Retrofit. With a little bit of editing and rewriting this could be a very good page!

Tahsa.Sturgis

Peer Edit #4[edit source]

Logan Baumgartner 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 that would want to know more about Tailwaggers, and the retrofits.

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

The information is navigable, but the sections could include some bullets or sub-headings to make the page more suitable for skimmers.

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 there could be some sub-headings in the categories. Overall the headings are in logical order and are specific, but not overly so.

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 are clear and open the paragraphs nicely. The body sentences that follow support the topic sentences. The paragraph structure is done well.

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 majority of the writing is objective; however, removing some padding could shorten the lengthy paragraphs. The word strange shouldn’t be 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 figures should be full sized images. The graphs are a little confusing. They would be better more visually pleasing if they were scatter plots or line graphs.

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 writer effectively refers to the figures and describes them when needed. The sources are 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 have done an excellent job of conveying the information RCEA would like to show.

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 sources are clearly presented and legitimate.

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 relate to Tailwaggers more than the retrofit. A link should be directed at the technical aspect of this project.

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 an acceptable 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?

The page has the correct categories and banner.

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

The document is well detailed and provides a lot of information. The headings make for easy navigation.

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

There could be a less padding in the paragraphs. A skim reader would not want to read all of every paragraph on this page, so add some bold words, bullets, and sub-sub-headings.

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

Nice job overall. Not much more editing is needed.

Logan Baumgartner