Cameron Smith's Peer Evaluation[edit source]
cts21 @5:30PM Tuesday, November 3, 2009
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 in this particular document is college educated students with a science emphasis. The writing may be a little too technical, maybe not though.
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 well, and it is easy to navigate through.
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 successfully… maybe student interns could be a subheading of benefits and funding and timeline could be brought together. Just a thought.
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 is clear in most all. I would look at possible revisions to “funding, air volume controls” and “proposed changes” is a passive sentence, which needs to be fixed.
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)
Mostly no objectivity is noticed throughout the webpage; avoid using words like boondoggle though. Instead say the project was not a success more professionally.
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 all very nice and do a good job giving visuals of the subject matter. The timeline graph is hard to read along with the thumb-nailed 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.
Figures are sometimes referenced. However, they are not labeled so they are not properly referenced and not all of them are referenced anyway. None of the figures have captions and the graphs need to be cited, unless you made them. Possibly un thumb-nail graphs so that everyone sees them without clicking off the page.
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.
Not an RCEA page.
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 reference table should have the sources named instead of just numbers with links to websites.
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?
No links besides those from the references. Get more 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?
The document is a great 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?
It has the in progress banner and the category.
13. List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
The documents strength is the information.
It is very good, and thorough. The pictures in the document are relevant and aesthetic.
14. List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
Put captions on the thumbnails. Put in links and write out the references instead of just using numbers.
15. Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors)
There was not a whole lot of feedback to give because the website was very good and full of good information. The only problems with the website are technical problems such as not having captions that can be edited. Some of the topic sentences are a bit weak and some terms are not defined, but those should easily be edited. This is a very good, very informative webpage. Good job.
cts21 @5:30PM Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Andy Preiksa Peer Edit[edit source]
1)The general public is the audience for this page, as it is for HEIF and not RCEA. I believe that the writing is simple enough for anyone to read
2)The headings make the page easy to navigate. Having all the pictures on one side of the page is helpful, but the pictures could be bigger. They are too small to read.
3)Headings are used well and help make the page readable. There are no level two headings. They could be used, but are not needed. The order follows the order in the introduction, which makes finding the information easier.
4)Some paragraphs are long and could be broken up with level two headings. The content fits with the topic sentences.
5)You have done a good job avoiding bias and adjectives in this writing.
6)The pictures and charts need to be big enough to read. They also need captions. However, all the needed figures are present on the page. Having them all on one side makes the page readable and isn’t distracting.
7)Although all your figures are there, they are not referred to in the text. The lack of captions makes the pictures meaningless so far. Adding these to things will help your page. Again, all the needed figures are included on the page.
8)NA
9)Your references come up as 1,2,3, and 4. I don’t know where they are taking me until after I have followed the link. All are good references to include, but they need text saying what they are
10)I did not see any outside links. These would be nice to be able to follow. Maybe these are in the references, but including them in the section would be nice. Where can I find more information?
11)The length is good. Some of the bulleted lists could be expanded on, but they don’t need to be.
12)The page has both the heading and correct categories
13)
- Well explained and expanded on. Plenty of detail, and figures to go along with the writing.
- Layout makes the page easy to read
- Your bulleted lists work well
14)
- Pictures are small and need captions to explain what they are
- References don’t say what they are. They appear as numbers
- “Edit” buttons make some text unreadable. (Last line of “funding”)
15)The page is well organized. Picture size and tags are a major part of the page that can be improved to help the reader understand their meaning. This is a great start considering how little time you had to complete it in.
Grant Rico's Peer Edit[edit source]
gar25 @ 9:00 on Nov, 4th 2009
Writing Issue Comment here and discussion tab
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 limited to people at HSU who already know about the Sci D/E complex. There is no mention of HSU in the beginning of the document, which could confuse anyone who stumbled across this site on Google. Be sure to target your document towards people interested in HEIF but also make it comprehensible to anyone reading the webpage.
2. Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout?
- The document is pretty well organized. Be sure to utilize bold words so that someone who scans while reading can still pick up on the important aspects. I would also justify some of the images to the left side; it will make your webpage look better and more balanced. Also most of the “edit” links for the document are located under the “Funding” heading, you should find a way to fix that.
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.
- Good use of headings, I can clearly tell the topic of each section. Good use of secondary headings. The only change I would make is to the bulleted list under “Other Energy Saving Opportunities.” Instead of using a bulleted list I would make small subheadings over the sections.
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 does have a clear opening topic sentence. I cannot think of any changes to make here.
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)
- Overall the writing is very objective. The one section that I would improve on is the “Benefits” section. The writing seems to become slightly biased, I would read over that part and see how I could rewrite it in an objective fashion.
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?
- All the images need improvement. All of the images are too small to see. Also the images have no captions so I have no idea what they are. Take your images out of thumbnail format so they can be seen. Also move some of them to the left side.
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 images are never referred to in the text and none of the images have figure numbers. None of the pictures have captions. Go to the ‘Help’ section when you are editing you appropedia, this will tell you how to post images.
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”?
- No questions. I feel like everything I might need to know about the sci D/E complex has been covered very well. The “References” section needs some work. All there is are hyperlinked numbers that take you to your sources. There are no titles for the 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?
- There are no links provided in the text. You could provide links to things like HIEF and the architecture company. You should hyperlink things in your document so if people do not know about something, they can click on it and find out about it.
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 of the document is appropriate. It will also appear longer once the images are enlarged.
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 is present. The categories are also present and the links are working.
13. List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) The best thing about this document is the quality of the information presented. It is obvious that a lot of time was spent researching the topic and the information you gathered is very professionally articulated. Good job on the detail of your project. The headings are very well done and in a good sequence. They help with the aesthetics of your page. Also good job on the length, all the data is presented well without causing the document to gett too lengthy.
14. List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
The areas that I personally think need improvement include:
• The images need to: be enlarged, have captions, and be mentioned in the text. Also some of them could be moved to the left to balance out the appearance of your document.
• Reference your images in your text and use figure numbers for your images.
• Try to make your document target more towards anyone in the opening of the document so that anyone reading it will understand that you are talking about the Science D building at HSU.
• Use bold words throughout your document so that anyone scanning your page will still be able to see the important points of your document.
• Add hyperlinks
• Fix your “References” section
• You generally did a good job, but be sure to always us an objective writing style. Read through your whole document to make sure of this.
15. Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors)
Overall, excellent job. This webpage has some of the best content that I have seen. All that really needs work is the technical aspects of it (pictures, headings, hyperlink errors, ect). Continue the great work and I am looking forward to seeing the final project.
Please feel free to email me if you have any questions or concerns.
gar25 @ 9:00 on Nov, 4th 2009