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

Talk:HEIF Take Back the Tap

From Appropedia
Revision as of 08:38, 4 November 2009 by Lhalstrom (Talk | Contributions) (Peer Edit-Logan Halstrom)

Jump to: navigation, search

Peer Review: Charles Swanson<
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 reach of the page does not seem to extend beyond our class. Your audience should be the world at large. Ideas should be exhaustive, only present ideas you intend to thoroughly discuss or examine.

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

There is not enough information to get bogged down in. There is a lot of empty space, makes the page feel as if there is nothing going on. Try to condense the images with the text.

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 such as “The Campaign” sound very subjective. As the first thing a reader sees, it makes me feel I’m being ‘campaigned’. Be more specific, try beginning with the Organizational History, they have a lot of recent highlights that can act to draw the reader in. Along with some pictures this will give the page a more urgent appeal.

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 first paragraph is good. The other sections have irrelevant statements as topical sentences. Stating “numerous” and “many” is vague and subjective. Try: “TBTT continues to encourage community participation and outreach in their efforts to reduce plastic bottled water consumption and production.” A bulleted list of upcoming activities. The section highlighting the organizations’ “Structure” is irrelevant, unless you intend to highlight more about each individual’s accomplishments in the context of this movement.

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 first and last sentences under the heading “Past Events” is unnecessary. Condense information as much as possible. Explain what a “position in the campus recycling program” is. What does it mean that the A.S. supports them? How? Be descriptive about the library display without being judgmental. Information is objective. Emotional adjectives (i.e. “exciting”) are distracting and inaccurate. Avoid start-stops at the beginning of sentences such as: “Lastly,”. Encouraging readers to get involved is not impartial it is saleable. Try to appear impartial.

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?

Photos are good, but need to be enlarged, and moved around, they are hiding in the lower corner. Images of piles of plastic bottles from a landfill or recycling center would be catchy, nothing too gloomy though.

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 no figure numbers or captions. Be careful with words like “substantiating”, pictures don’t substantiate a page unless you are providing evidence, they just enhance it.

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”?

References are good but need to be bulleted. What are the effects of TBTT on local bottled water consumption? Do they have any figures? Maybe use some national figures? Statistics can be boring so choose a few and highlight them in the context of a paragraph.

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 good, very inciting, makes me want to watch the movies, and find out more about this movement.

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 bit short. There is a lot of room to evaluate the effects of bottled water consumption, production and manufacture. Break up information into chunks like on the North Coast Environmental Center website, each one complete in itself and concise.

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, all applicable categories are accounted for.


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

-The page has a lot of leads that can be followed.

-The subject matter is very interesting, and the movement is one with many loyal and passionate followers. People want to find out what this organization is doing to make our community stronger. Therefore all you have to do is present the facts and the reader will follow.


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

-Try to establish goals outright that lead the reader in a continuous direction.

-Reorganize the headings. Break up each heading into complete pieces that are relevant to the heading subject.

-Give a summary sentence or topic sentence at the beginning that is objective and does not become repetitive.


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

-There is much work yet to be done, unfortunately it sounds like you have not had much interaction with the organization itself.

-Try branching out a little, there is so much information on this topic and it really sounds like you are personally interested.

-You say that it is good for the environment, budget, health, and indigenous peoples but don’t state one way in which this actually occurs. Water rights are crucial to every aspect of life and these water bottling companies are trying to buy up water rights all over the world. They not only pollute the environment but they drive up the price of every commodity in the world through their efforts to turn a natural resource into a commodity. See if you can highlight the positive effects that are proposed by TBTT and other conservation organizations.

-Good luck
End Peer Review: Charles Swanson


1. Students of Humboldt, this is appropriate.
2. Layout is easy to follow. The amount of sections seemed to be too small however.
3.Headings are used successfully and enough for the information provided. However, I think more headings with more subtopics about TBTT would be nice.
4.All categories except for structure have a topic sentence, which is ok. All following sentences stay on topic with the topic sentence. Campaign section could be more in depth. Tell more about TBTT and why they are important.
5“many student chapters” campaign section
“Their most impressive event” (past events)
“one of the most exciting” (future events)
these imply opinions.

6. Photos are of a display case with water bottles in it. This doesn’t show me much about TBTT. Maybe a photo with people from TBTT would help. The pic of the hydration station is a very good ad on though.
7. Page doesn’t refer to any figures.
8. -
9. Sources are represented well. My question is how can students help with TBTT and possibly how successful TBTT has been so far this year.
10. There are multiple links that enhance the page’s quality, they are very easy to follow
11. The document it too short, the information provided if single spaced would take up maybe 1-2 pages. I think going more into the history of TBTT or adding more to the campaign section would help.
12. Yes and yes

13. strengths
The document is easy to follow and has precise information. It seems to be pretty short. Spelling and grammar seem to not be a problem. The photo of the hydration station is a good ad on.

14. List areas for improvement
More photos would help the page. More in-depth information is needed. A lengthier page overall would help with the quality your trying to reach.

Nathan Braun



Peer Review-Logan Halstrom

Logan Halstrom

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 who is interested in TBTT. It is slightly specific to HSU students.


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

The headings separate the sections effectively. The bullets in the Structure section are somewhat tedious. The could be enhances with some bold text or by removing them altogether.


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 use in a way that denotes information in an orderly way. The Structure heading could be modified to explicitly state what it describes the structure of, to be absolutely clear.


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.

All paragraphs have a topic sentence that states a clear idea which is followed by on-topic data.


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)

Most of the writing is easy for anyone to understand. AS could be clarified for someone who isn't familiar with HSU structure, and hydration stations could be more specifically defined.


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 bring important information to the page, but they could be used to a greater effect. Caption would help explain what the pictures are showing. I knew what the exhibit was because I had seen it in the Library, but a non-student might not. Also, two pictures of the same exhibit might not be necessary. The hydration station could be labeled, too.


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 not figure numbers and no specific references in the page. The sources are cited in the memo, so they will probably be added later. Figure captions would help to identify text with pictures. Another good picture to add would be the on-campus hydration stations.


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 RCEA.


9.Are there any questions you have about the topic that are not addressed? Are the sources of the information clearly presented under “References”?

Any data on the results? Is that data even obtainable? Where are the hydration stations on campus and how do they work? I know you haven't met with the Coordinator yet so I hope you get some of this information from her.


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 helpful and on topic. They are informative, easy to read, and bring relevant information to the reader. The first link is slightly confusing due to its placement and might be placed on TBTT instead. Some links to add might be to information on SLAM Fest and other programs mentioned.


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. The past and future events could all be elaborated on a little to increase the length of the page. Especially elaborate on the hydration stations; the link is helpful, but an in-page summary is more important to the reader.


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

This page has useful images and links. The links are related and worth checking out, as opposed to superfluous or irrelevant. The page also makes TBTT into an interesting subject.


14.List areas for improvement

The page should be expanded. More details on each topic will lead for opportunities to add second level headings and other structural organization devices, increasing the length.


15.Overall comments

You found a lot more projects involving TBTT than I was aware of and I am interested in knowing more details about them. I think that a background on the effects of bottles is a very effective idea. Perhaps you could also include ways to reduce bottled water usage. Overall, good job on making a topic that I thought was pretty simple a lot more detailed an interesting.

Logan Halstrom