Talk:RCEA energy audit reviews/Arcata Used Tire and Wheel: Difference between revisions

by: Ryan Noone

The "(or higher quality that yours)" has a typo. in the sentence "The bulbs from RCEA cost $957.85 and for around a hundred dollars was installed by Brant electric" you should either stick with spelling out the numbers or not, and instead of using "was", "were" seems more appropriate. In the predicted saving vs. actual savings chart, the "row 3, cell 2" should probably have a value instead.

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. Yes, they are targeting the right audience by having the information clearly understandable and discussed in an easily comprehendible way. 2. Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout? The payout provided is clear and defined by its sections and graphs. 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 a little clustered, but contain enough information to be a complete considered a complete tab. 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 appropriate, and all other sentences relate well to the topic sentence, although specific phrasing in sentences is sometimes a little hard to understand. 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, their phrasing is very objective and professional. 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 and graphs are a little hard to understand, but with improvement will be vary helpful. 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 they use references to figures in their graphs, but this is not very clearly expressed, and is not easily understandable. 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. Yes they do, and it is compared well, but some information should be expressed more clearly. 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 there are not, and no there are not any refrences. 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 not many links but the ones the page offers are important and valuable ones. 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 seems to be 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, all of the above are present on the page.

13. List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) Clear and easy on the reader, and is very informative.

14. List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) Once simple things are cleaned up their page will be very much improved.

15. Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors) Good charts, graphs, and information throughout the page. Overall very good thus far.

by: Ryan Noone

JuliaA Peer Review

Name of Editor: Julia Allshouse Contact Information: jla65@humboldt.edu Names of Writers: Charis Thompson and Brianne Rielly

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.

  This seems to be targeted towards anyone interested in energy efficiency, but I feel like it lacks a professional tone in the first paragraph.

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

   Yes the layout 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.

   I feel that Predictions and Collected Data should be split into two different headings. You probably don't need a header under graph data or maybe use a level two heading. 

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 clear topic sentence in every 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)

    The writing is mostly objective with exception to the first paragraph (noted above #1).

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?

    I understand the first 2 photographs but I am confused about the third photograph, a caption would be nice.

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 captions on any of the pictures, so added those would make the readers less confused.

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.

   Yes the table and graph are clear.

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 are no questions, but then again there are no 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 are two links on the webpage, which are relevant to the topic, but again there are no references at the bottom.

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 article is at a reasonable 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, it has both.

13.List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) There is a lot of information on this page but it is laid out clearly, and easy to read and comprehend.

14.List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) Your first sentence starts the page off on a bad foot, "Arcata Used Tire and Wheel is a company that is fairly self explanatory." I've never been there so tell me what the business is all about, thats the point of the page. Also it's better to use inexpensive instead of cheap it makes it sound like they are selling crappy products. Also I don't know who Mr. Vagle is under "Future Retrofits" I am guessing it is the owner but you might want to specify. Under "Habit Changes" you start to use AUTW instead of Arcata Used Tire and Wheel, which is fine except you should probably state that the first time you use the name of the company instead of the end of the page.

User:JuliaA/Peer review