Talk:RCEA energy audit reviews/ St. Vincent De Paul Thrift Store

From Appropedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Izzy Konopa'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 think the target audience consists of people from the RCEA, ENG 115 students and affiliates of the Eureka branch of St. Vincent De Paul. The writing is appropriate for this audience.

2. Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout?I would suggest using the “one idea per paragraph” method outlined in Jakob Nielsons writing for the web aricle. To improve the layout I would follow the content section in the RCEA energy audit reviews page in appropedia.

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 first heading should be more specific. For example, the first heading could simply be, St. Vincent De Paul, and the following paragraph is just about the business. The next heading could be, The Retrofits, and the following paragraph would describe those. I would suggest more headings with shorter paragraphs.

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. I would suggest shortening the topic sentences and keeping each paragraph on the subject of the topic sentence. I would suggest the first paragraph be broken down into two sections, 1. Describing the business, 2. Describing the retrofits. The second paragraph should be included in the describing the retrofits section.

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). To keep the writing strictly technical I would eliminate the word affectionately from the phrase, “affectionately referred to as Old Town.”

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 photographs work well and are easy to understand. I would suggest including a graph of the electrical consumption before and after the retrofits. To upload a graph onto appropedia you must first turn it into a powerpoint slide or a photoshop file.

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 were no references to figures using figure numbers, but the information relevant to the figures/ images, was presented in close proximity to the images. The figures had appropriate 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. The writers have yet to present the bottom line in a table or graphical format.I would suggest incorporating a table of the money and carbon dioxide emissions saved versus the predicted savings. A three column format would be easiest to read. Column one would list predicted savings, column two would list actual savings and column three would list the difference.

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 am curious what lighting was in place before the retrofits.

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 there are links to the RCEA, St Vincent De Paul and Pg&E. I would suggest having only one link to each site. They could be more technical in describing the retrofits, i.e. describe the types of lighting equipment before and after the retrofit. I would suggest adding a section describing the RCEA in more detail. There is no summary of refrences.

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 too short at this time. Items needing to be addressed include, 1. Specifics of the retrofit. 2. Results of the retrofit, including energy savings and carbon dioxide reduction. 3. Graph of electrical usage indicating when the retrofit occurred.

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 page has the ENG 115 banner. Yes the page has the correct categories at the end of the page.

13. List the strengths of document – The document had a well prepared section that described the company’s experience working with the RCEA. This section touched on most of the points in the Content section of the RCEA energy audit reviews page on appropedia. The document provided links to all the appropriate sites. There were pictures that highlighted the business and the retrofits. At this time the document still needs some work, but there is a lot of good work done so far.

14. List areas for improvement – At this time there are several jobs that need completing. First and foremost is the business of a quantitative analysis of the data. The projected energy/dollar savings needs to be compared to the actual energy/dollar savings. Also, the carbon dioxide emissions reduction needs to be calculated. To improve the existing page I would suggest reading Jacob Nielsen’s article “How users read the web”, and following the advice given there.

15. Overall comments – Given the setbacks incurred by the authors the page is coming along well.


Taylor Edwards' 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. When I read the entry I felt like anybody could have been the target audience. This is good because it is meant for the public.

2. Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout? The vital information is missing from the site. There needs to be a paragraph about the results of the retrofit.

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. I would make the wording of the headings more precise. The meanings behind the headings are not totally clear until you read each passage.

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 not as clear as they could be. The first topic sentence of the first paragraph is a run-on and is slightly confusing. The third paragraph’s topic sentence doesn’t tell the reader what the whole paragraph is about. Each topic sentence needs a grammar and wording review.

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.

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 paragraphs took me a couple times to read before understood them completely. This is due to the general headings and less precise topic sentences.

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 two pictures; one is well captioned and the other caption should be more professional. The link the Excel graph is not explained at all. The heading for the link doesn’t accurately describe it. The graph should be on the Appropedia page itself.

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. No, this data is missing. It is possible that it is on the Excel graph but I can’t open it.

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 would like to see the end results of the retrofit. The isn’t a section labeled as “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? Yes there are links but there are too many in the first paragraph. There should only be one link for each site. There are summaries 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 to too short. It should contain a table of results, a graph, and a summary of the findings.

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 progress banner is present but it should be at the top of the page. It has the correct category.

13. List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) The authors of the document seem to be very in touch with the social side of the business; for example, how the business owner felt about the retrofit.

14. List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) The organization of the document could be improved. This entails specific headings and topic sentences. The page looks unfinished at this point. There should be data and graphs on the page itself. Grammar is also something to be improved upon.

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

-At the bottom of the page there is a bunch of useless text which looks like a formatting template.

-I’m sure that a few proof readings will fix all of the grammar errors.

-The BIGGEST issue is that the end results of the retrofit are not on the page.

Michael Chenaille'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. Anyone interested in gaining information on the retrofit of St. Vincent de Paul in Eureka, CA.

2.Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout? The page is not hard to navigate, but the paragraphs are not focused enough. It can be hard to find specific information because multiple topics are covered in single paragraphs.

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. It could definitely use more headings, it would help with separating the information too. Here are a couple headings I feel would help make the document read easier: “History of St. Vincent de Paul,” “Funding the Retrofit,” etc.

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. No there is not a clear topic sentence for each paragraph. All following sentences do not relate to the topic sentence. The first paragraph of the document could be split up into at least 2 more focused paragraphs. The final paragraph of the page could use some grammar editing, but the flow of the paragraph is good. If you quote someone you should use quotation marks, otherwise avoid saying “in her words.”

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) I don’t see any bias except for referring to Ms. Henly, who makes RCEA seem angelic, but since that bias is not coming from the writers, and is an account of someone’s experience with RCEA it should be fine.

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 photographs are easy to understand, it could use charts or graphs, but the reason for those missing is explained in the memo.

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 do not refer to the figures in the text using figure numbers. Figures do have captions. You can incorporate figures in your text with sentences such as “The new lights shine brightly as shown in figure 3.”

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 not yet included a table or 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 is no reference section.

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 words in the text which are links, but there is no section on the page which concentrates all the links. I would suggest adding a “links” title and just reposting the links there as well as in the text. The relevance of each site is clear. 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? It is too short. Separate, more focused and elaborate paragraphs would help this along with the charts and graphs they are working on. There is little to no hard data which would help fill in a lot of space, but that issue was addressed in the 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? It does.


13.List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) Explains need for the retrofit, Good first hand account (Ms. Henly)


14.List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) It could use a short summary of the article above the table of contents, Wrap the text around the photos more cleanly, More titles

15.Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors) Work on getting some tables, charts, and hard data and always keep grammar in mind, it’s an easy thing to forget about late at night. If you need me to elaborate further on anything feel free to contact me. Michael Chenaille

Cece Torres' 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 is the ENGR 115 student and anyone who might be interested in working with RCEA. I think it 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? The page is easy to navigate and i can find everything very easily except from the graph, don't forget to put it in jpg format. I think the layout looks clean cut.

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 seems to be in the right locations, you need a lot more headings for the information you need to put in. They are in logical order so far maybe out in some sub headings 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. The topic sentence of each paragraph is not clear, when people read websites they scan, so it is crucial to have a solid topic sentence for all your paragraphs. Try summarizing what your going to talk about while keeping it concise, scannable and objective from the link Dustin gave us by Jakob Nielson.

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 through most of the appropedia page, except when you use the word "affectionately" to describe Old Town Eureka.

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 photographs are good, the graph is hard to find and I never actually got to see it. Make sure you upload it to a PDF.

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 writers needs to refer to the figures in the text and all the sources need to 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 bottom line still needs to represented through either a graph or a table.

9. Are there any questions you have about the topic that are not addressed? Are the sources of the information clearly presented under "References"? Exactly what retrofits were made? The sources need to be cited and put under the reference section.

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 plenty of related sites within the page. They all make since within the text,links do not need to be put on each time the link name is in the text. Make sure to make a summary of all the 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 too short. These items need to be addressed: What retrofits were made, the result of the retrofits and the graphs of the energy consumption from the retrofits.


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 ENGR 115 banner, but it is supposed to be at the top of the page.  The page also has the correct categories.

13. List the strengths of document -There is a good start with some really good information -There were effective hyperlinks to appropriate sites -There were adequate pictures 14. List areas for improvement -All Data from the retrofit needs to be put in from before and after the retrofit to compare the two. -The projected vs. actual savings need to be compared -Ineffective graph -Not effectively concise, scannable or qualitative. -remove all the unnecessary text thats under the ENGR 115: In Progress Banner at the bottom.

15. Overall comments

 There were some set backs, but there should be significant progress. The information presented was of good quality but there are a number of things that need to be fixed and put in.