Comments by Jeffren Ramos, 4/30/10
- What is the most important strength of this document?
Lots of information, and great coverage on the entire lifecycle of the product.
- What is the most important aspect to change?
Maybe expand the Use section a little more? I'm not sure there's much more to say than what is said about the table accompanying that section, but does the literature provide any information about incandescent vs. CFL usage or if a preference has developed since CFLs became more widespread?
- How could the navigation of the document be improved?
There are no problems with navigation.
- Do you have suggestions for improving the headings used in the document?
None--the headings don't seem problematic in any way.
- Are there any topic sentences that should be improved?
The Manufacture section could start with a topic sentence, rather than immediately discussing the table. The same goes for the Use section, but only if there's more information available, as per my previous suggestion.
- Do all figures have captions, figure numbers and are they referred to in the text?
All of the captions for tables are done correctly and referred to in the text.
- Is there at least one reference per author? Are the references cited properly and do they use the format described here? http://www.appropedia.org/Help:Footnotes
Four sources for four authors, and they all appear to be cited properly.
- Are tables included as text whenever possible? (Appropedia can search text in tables – so Lonny prefers tables to be text rather than images). This page contains information on how to make tables http://www.appropedia.org/Help:Table_examples
The tables use text.
- Should the document be shortened or lengthened? If so, what suggestions do you have.
The length seems sufficient, but consider my comment about the Use section if you're looking for a place to lengthen the document.
- Any other questions or comments for the authors?
Excellent work!
---End of comments by Jeffren Ramos
Comments by Nathan Chase
1. What is the most important strength of this document? Well laid out sections
2. What is the most important aspect to change? Firstly, there are a few grammar errors that would be easily caught with a good read through. Secondly, highlighting the comparison between CFL and incandescents could be alittle stronger in places. Lastly a conclusion section would be good.
3. How could the navigation of the document be improved? Over all this was well laid out
4. Do you have suggestions for improving the headings used in the document? Add conclusions section
5. Are there any topic sentences that should be improved? Stronger topic sentence to summarize the Percieved Benefit section
6. Do all figures have captions, figure numbers and are they referred to in the text? Table 2 is not very intuitive and should be better introduced or reworked
7. Is there at least one reference per author? Are the references cited properly and do they use the format described here? http://www.appropedia.org/Help:Footnotes Yes
8. Are tables included as text whenever possible? (Appropedia can search text in tables – so Lonny prefers tables to be text rather than images). This page contains information on how to make tables http://www.appropedia.org/Help:Table_examples Yes well done, see comment on table 2 above.
9. Should the document be shortened or lengthened? If so, what suggestions do you have. Adding a conclusion section would be good. Other than that it is a good length for a wiki type document
10. Any other questions or comments for the authors? WIth respect to the disposal section, what if they were disposed of properly? People change, what energy impacts would that have? Pollution impacts? it sounds like your making that decision to neglect that part of the equation as opposed to simply stating what you found in the literature. If they all make that conclusion then make that clear.
End Comments Nathan Chase