Get our free book (in Spanish or English) on rainwater now - To Catch the Rain.

Talk:The Bottoms wildlife pond greywater plumbing

From Appropedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Peer Review[edit]

--Savage.daniele


Name of Editor: Daniele Peters
Contact Information: dbp9Atsymbol.pnghumboldtDot.pngedu
Names of Writers: David Colvin and Bradon Storer

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 wanting to find more information about a working greywater treatment system. Anyone could understand this site without any prior knowledge on the subject.

2. Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout?
The layout is perfect and it is very easy to navigate through the page, although the pictures are not aligned 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 superb and are in a logical order.

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 need to have topic sentences. Maybe describing the purpose of each part of the process at the beginning of the paragraph would be better. The paragraphs are very complex, it may help to number each step in the 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)
Good language that follows a professional and technical genre. Some grammar errors and comma slices. This needs to be read through and edited again.

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?
Great pictures. Two of the pictures are overlapping each other and very unclear. The drawings are magnificent. The alignment of the pictures can also be improved.

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.
Yes, except for the first one. It should be given a title. The figures are very well described and compliment the text impeccably.

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.
N/A

9. Are there any questions you have about the topic that are not addressed? Are the sources of the information clearly presented under “References”?
Good sources throughout text and at the end of 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. Great links! There is a good amount and they are at the same technicality level. Relevance is very clear. A summary could be useful but the link names are descriptive enough.

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 little too long. Try to simplify the processes in each step. Try numbering or bulleting.

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 both.


13. List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
• Good layout
• Easy to navigate
• Descriptive headings
• Excellent pictures
• Superb drawings
• Wonderful descriptions


14. List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
• Overlapping pictures
• Lengthy
• Complicated paragraphs
• Grammar errors


15. Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors)
Great job. I feel very informed after reading this site. Try simplifying processes into defined steps. Pictures need adjustment. Ready other than a few minor grammatical errors. Read it over out loud.

--Savage.daniele


Starting Comments[edit]

Missing header {{115inprogress|December 18th, 2009}} and category. See instructions.

--Lonny 05:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Shaffer Smith's Comments[edit]

Shaffer08

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 is anyone who is interested in greywater treatment and if it’s proven to be effective.

2.Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout? I think your layout is great. Reading through your page was both smooth and informative. I felt like I really had a grasp on the system after reading your article the first time. I like how each section is a part of the system with the corresponding pictures.

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 think your headings are good, with a minor couple exceptions. “System” should be “Greywater System” to be more descriptive. Also, “Next Step” is descriptive, but maybe “Finalization” or something like that would ring better. Oh, and “House” should be more descriptive.

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 think you topic sentences for all your paragraphs are great. I looked at each one and they all are descriptive of their paragraph.

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 totally objective. It seems appropriate when you use the word “unfortunately” in the last paragraph due to the circumstances, but you might want to mention why it’s unfortunate. Are they at risk not following a regulation?

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 titles of some of the drawings and photos start out with “picture of…” or “drawing of...” I would get rid of that and leave the words that follow. I think a title for the first picture would strengthen your 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. You refer to one picture, using a figure number, which is great. And you also have figure numbers on other helpful images but you don’t refer to those when there are definitely places in your writing where you could. It would be an easy addition. Maybe to picture at the very bottom after the bulk of writing to spice it up. Great pictures and diagrams!

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.

9.Are there any questions you have about the topic that are not addressed? Are the sources of the information clearly presented under “References”? You need a references section to clearly cite your sources.

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? More links would be helpful. One example is for CCAT which has a page in appropedia. You could make an in-text link to their appropedia home page when you mention it in your “cost” paragraph. I know you

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 think you’ve made your page an appropriate 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 and yes. Good job.

13.List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) I think you have a very strong start. Like I said earlier, I think it is written well, it’s easy to read (not too complicated), and very informative. You balanced your text and pictures nicely.

14.List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) Honestly, it looks like you are almost there with minor improvements to be made. One thing I haven’t mentioned yet is that you might want to end with a wrap-up or conclusion of some kind other than “Regulations” which is your last paragraph (this one’s up to you).

15.Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors) Good job. I’m impressed with your page.

Shaffer08


Tahsa Sturgis' Peer Review:
[edit]

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 seems to be anyone interested in knowing how greywater systems work. The writing style is very appropriate, it does a good job of explaining the process of greywater systems so that anyone could understand the material.

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

Information presented is very easy to navigate. However, the pictures are aligned awkwardly in the middle and vary in size. Having a consistent place for pictures, and smaller sizes would help the overall flow of the layout. Overall, the information is clear and easy to find.

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 set up in a great order that allows the reader to fully grasp the concepts presented in each section. They are all in logical order and flow very nicely with the pictures.

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 for each subject, for the most part, and are followed up nicely with relevant discussions for each paragraph. The only suggestion I would make is better transitional sentences at the end of each paragraph, but it works ok the way it is too.

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 very concise and not too technical. Overall, the writing does a very good job of presenting the facts with no bias. There are a few grammatical errors.

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 awkwardly placed and better placement could help the layout. It’s difficult on the eyes to have large pictures in the middle parts of the page between the texts. This can be easily fixed though and the pictures chosen compliment the information very well.

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.

Yes, all the figures have figure numbers except for the first picture. Nice captions on the pictures and they do a great job of giving a visual to the processes described. Better alignment and size are my suggestions for improvement.

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.

N/A

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 presented information was very clear, so I have no questions about anything that wasn’t addressed. The sources are properly cited at the bottom of the page 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 is one link to an outside source and two links to the same source in appropedia. I would suggest a few more outside links and not having two links to the same source (ex: the two greywater links). The relevance of selected sites is clear and there is a summary of references at the bottom of 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 a good length but seems longer because the placement and size of the pictures. This can be fixed by editing the sizes and alignment of the pictures.

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 an ENGR 115 progress banner and the page has the correct categories at the bottom of the page.

13.List the strengths of document

  • Clear information
  • Easy to understand
  • Great Visuals
  • Nice Layout
  • Order of Headings flows nicely
  • Very good incorporation of Figures that explain how each process looks and works

14.List areas for improvement

  • Better placement of pictures
  • Smaller figures in better position so the page doesn’t seem as long
  • Few grammatical errors
  • More links to relevant outside sources

15.Overall comments

The page has great information that is easy to follow. The pictures and figures are picked out nicely for each subject and help the reader fully understand how greywater systems work. The few improvements are the aligning and sizing of the pictures as wells as more links to relevant sources. Great job overall, keep it up!

Tahsa.Sturgis

Josh Bancroft's Peer Review:
[edit]

jrb154 Name of Editor: Josh Bancroft Contact Information: jrb154@humboldt.edu Names of Writers: Brandon Storer and David Colvin


• 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 intended to be reached is anyone trying to gain knowledge about a greywater treatment system.

• Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout? The page is layout is easily navigated. Try not to have your images take up so much space of your web page.

• 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 in logical order.

• 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 are full of useful information. Some of your opening sentences don't relate to the headings.

• 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) Some grammatical errors, could not find any spelling errors, but I would recommend going through and re-reading your page

• 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? All of the pictures are good images. But the two pictures that overlap are the first thing that caught my eye when i glanced at the page for my first time.

• 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. You used a figure number only once to the first image, you should do the same for your other images.

• 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. NA

• Are there any questions you have about the topic that are not addressed? Are the sources of the information clearly presented under “References”? A reference section would be a good thing to add. It will allow readers to further there knowledge about the greywater system.

• 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? Sites are provided, but only appropedia pages. I recommend putting more links from different sites.

•	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 feel that your page is an appropriate length. Everything that needed to be known is present in this web page
   
 •	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


•List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) I feel like you are headed in the right direction with your page. The headings of each section clearly tell the reader what they will be reading about next. Overall I noticed the hard work put into this page. Good Job

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

Fixing the overlapped picture would be the first thing I would want to see fixed. Then add a reference section

jrb154