Editing Talk:HEIF campus energy monitoring

==Yannick Nadaeu's Peer Review==
Name of Editor:   Yannick Nadeau	
Contact Information: yrn2@humboldt.edu	
Names of Writers: Joshua Rodriguez & Nate Gates	

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.	
 
I feel like the audience is people interested in the HEIF monitoring program and the internship available. Mostly this would be HSU students who would qualify for the internship. I would just expound on what you have add some links and images.

2.	Is the information presented easy to navigate?  Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout?  	It is easy to navigate because there is not much info. 

You guys need to be clear what campus this monitoring is taking place at(i.e. HSU) Have a 2nd tier title labeling what your bullet points are. This makes it more memorable to the reader. 

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.	

Your two headings are good but you should look at answer for question above for my layout suggestion

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 ok and you guys stay on topic quite well, you guys just need to “spruce” up your page with images and links that draw the eye to important highlights about your topic.  

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 objective. The facts are laid out in an efficient manner

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?	

You need some graphics as you know.

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.	

No figures or graphics.

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”?	

There is no reference section. I want to know you’re guys’ information source for what you explained about the project in your 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?	

Not any links besides the categories links. There doesn’t seem to be to much technical info to communicate. The relevance of the Intro to Engineering category is really not explained to the appropedia page audience. Mainly that the appropedia page is a project for Eng115 class. No reference summary.   

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 to short it needs to be expounded with some more clarification. You guys know the things you need to do.

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 does have the correct categories and in progress banner. 


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

This document is straight forward and not bias. The base structure is good with what you are trying to explain you just need more info.



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

More info and clarity along with links, graphics, and reference list. Just need to follow the guidelines on moodle to fill out the page more. Need more dazzle to your page. Maybe a link to HSU and explain how the page is related to Intro to Engineering 115.


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

I understand you had problems getting started with your project. Hopefully it goes more smoothly from here on out and that my comments are just to give you guys some feedback and suggestions as you move forward for some ideas. Good luck and I hope this review helps.

== Layton Peer Evaluation<br> ==

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.<br>

I feel that the target audience for the writing in this document may include people looking for internships in the energy realm. The information presented so far seems to be appropriate for this audience. <br>

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

The two headings used in the layout of this document are relatively clear. However, the information in the Internship section should contain bullets with complete thoughts. Some of the thoughts in the existing bullets spill over to the next bullet. Using the bullet tool would improve the clarity of the document.<br>

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.<br>

The two headings currently in the document could be redesigned to improve clarity. A suggestion would be to use Project History or Project Background Instead of The Project. Additional heading may include: (1) Duties of the intern; (2) Requirements; and (3) References.<br>

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. <br>

The topic sentence should be honed and paragraphs developed upon the topic. Examples may include: “The HEIF program was established to…”, and ”The role of the intern is diverse.” <br>

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)<br>

I do not detect over powering bias in the writing that has been presented so far in the document. <br>

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?<br>

No figures or photos are present in the document at this time. A suggestion for a photo may include pie chart describing the duties of the intern and the estimated time spent performing each task.<br>

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.<br>

No references are made to figures. Incorporate a figure into the document consists of two basic steps: (1) use descriptive text to present the idea represented by the figure; and (2) including the figure into the document after the introduction. <br>

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.<br>

This is not an RCEA page.<br>

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

What does HEIF stand for? When was the project started? Has it been successful? The document does not include a reference section. <br>

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?<br>

The document does not contain links to relative sites.<br>

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?<br>

At this point the document is too short. Topics to be addressed may include: (1) How are baselines established?; (2) How are candidate building identified and evaluated?; (3) What do HEIF proposals consist of?: (4) What are some examples of past outreach programs?; and (5) How is the HSU community educated about efficiency?<br>

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?<br>

The document includes the progress banner at the top of the page. The document contains the correct Engineering categories at the bottom of the page.<br>

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

The font used for the headings seems to distinguish them well. The topics listed in the internship section look appropriate and have definite room to expand on. Some interesting history of the records filing system is briefly discussed and may an interesting example of the increase in information sharing.<br>14. List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)

The addition of some figures and links will improve the functionality of the document. Adding descriptive titles to the future figures would add increase the usability of the document. Links to the HEIF website and to the UC Davis HEIF would also improve the functionality of the document.<br>15. Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors)

The semester is quickly coming to a close. This being said, it looks like you guys should shift gears on this project and “get ‘er done.”<br><br>
'''Bold text'''
==Tau Perin Peer Edit==
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 for this document was Student and adults.
The use of language should be more technical and detail oriented.  Cover some of the numbers collected by the Interns in the programs as an example.

2.	Is the information presented easy to navigate?  Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout?  	The information that was presented is easy to navigate, to easy. I would include some links that are appropriate pictures and possibly graphs of successful Retrofits done on campus.

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.	Yes the headings were used successfully, there could be however four or five more headings. Several of the topics listed under the internship heading could be headings themselves. The headings are in logical order, but with additional headings there would need to be some rearrangement.

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. 	Yes there is a clear topic sentence. Yes they do, I would say maybe to have a simpler sentences. The second topic paragraph could have more sentences for the possible  uses data. Use less words to create stronger direct language.

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 objective. There seems to be no bias in the writing, there is only objective factual statements.  

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?	There are no pictures so I could say addition of picures and graphs would add a visual dimension that would improve presentation. Pictures of buildings on campus, with numbers below them showing energy consumption.

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.	No, There could be more figures in the site and captions. If there was a presentation of buildings and their use of power,  carbon footprint and a comparison of two buildings one newer and one older with dimensions of floor space. This would be a good way to present figures.

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”?	I am curious about who is doing the study, and how they will present solutions after the study. There are no References sited, they would bring more realism to the 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?	There are no links to the related sites. I suggest links to some of the sites at UC Davis.  

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?	To short. The addition of several other topics and links to other related sites would be very helpful. Graphics would also be very helpful for the page.

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, there is a banner.


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



14.	List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
Areas of improvement are graphics and topic headings. There could also be some graphical data and a comparison of two buildings on campus.



15.	Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors)
The list of uses for the study under the second topic could be very useful as topic headings. Pictures of campus buildings and their power usage would be a plus.