Talk:RCEA energy audit reviews/Hospice of Humboldt: Difference between revisions

Name of Editor:Tim Kukuk Contact Information: tkukuk@humboldt.edu Names of Writers: Nathan Braun, Dylan McGurk

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. Maybe someone who will need hospice in the future. Might be written to more of a technical audience.

2. Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout? Some of the info regarding hospice seems a little unnecessary, might be able to remove a large portion of it and have a better flow. Sections on benefits and employment could be removed.

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. More info regarding retrofits is needed, more headings regarding the RCEA audit could be added. Headings regarding individual misconceptions about hospice might not be completely appropriate in this technical communication regarding the energy audit. Might consider statements rather than questions for headings.

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. Could improve in sections 2, and 2.1. Could expand on these sections. Might consider sentences of explanation rather than bullets in “types of retrofits”

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) There is some use of “us” and “we” that could be removed. The hospice info does not seem to be written from a technical standpoint. Relevant sections could have more information.

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? Graph needs to be easier to read. Table could be expanded. Photo’s look good.

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 and pics are not referred to in the text. More explanation is needed for the table. Caption for the graph might help.

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. Power usage and costs seem to have gone up since the retrofits, explanation could be given for this. Could reference projected numbers of energy savings, cost savings, and CO2 reductions in figures or body of 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”? See above question, why has power usage gone up, were they happy with the retrofits, would they perform more retrofits, …

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 references are linked, otherwise there are no 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 section on hospice seems long and possibly unnecessary, the sections on the audit is too short, could be expanded to include explanation of rising power usage, would they perform more retrofits, etc.

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 they are in place.

13. List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) Photo’s of specific lighting are nice.

14. List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) There are some opportunities for improvement. Energy audit needs to be explained, as well as findings. Graph needs some work to be readable. Table needs expansion. Most of hospice section could be removed.

15. Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors) Specific input asked for is regarding information citing, sources are listed at the bottom of the page, hospice info may need quotes, looks like maybe part of a brochure.

Brent Sanders Comment[edit source]

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.

It seems like half of the content is directed to someone who is looking for hospice services. It is good to know what the business is but the majority of the content seems to be talking about the business. There is a good discussion about the retrofits at the end that I feel needs to be strengthened.

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

I can find the information, but when scanning the document for items such as the costs and savings, I found that this information is detracted from by excess information about the business.

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.

There are 3 headings but hospics of Humboldt has the most subheadings. I feel that there too much elaboration on the business. Bring the focus back to the energy audit by adding some subheadings and elaborating on this instead.

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 stated generally well. Also, the content stays on 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)

“…very conscientious..” is used in the latter portion of the webpages, also the business description seems like I’m being sold to.

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?

Yes, the figures , photos and graphs are straight forward. The graph can be cleaned up a bit by restricting the boudries on the x and y axis. The data seems to be hanging out alone, try placing the figures with the text. needs figure and chart references

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, these charts and figures are not referenced.

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 before and after usage and cost is presented in a table. There is no table/figure # and the “average” column should be moved to each cell (e.g. Avg. Cost, Avg. kWH)

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 external links at the end seem ok. but the page does not use any in text references or links.

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 links to Hospice information sites, I believe 1 or 2 is enough. There are no relevant links to energy savings or anything of the sort.

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 audit information is too short and the business description is too long.

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 - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)

Clear descriptions of photos and the charts and figures are easy to understand. Addresses major points about the energy audit.

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

Elaborate on the retrofit process and the savings. This article seems to have more focus on what a Hospice is, but it should have more info on the energy audit.

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

Lots of content to work with for the business description, clear and simple figures. Easy to follow.

Name of Editor:Sabre Ethridge
Contact Information: sre21@humboldt.edu
Names of Writers: Nathan Braun and Dylan McGurk/ Hospice of Humboldt

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 website would be someone looking to do a project with the RCEA. For this audience the website is very effective, because the authors explain the energy/money saving aspect. It could use more focus on the saving and less about the businesses history/ the history of hospice.

Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout?
The site is easy to navigate, however the table of contents set the data and retrofits on the back-burner to the information on the Hospice of Humboldt.

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 useful and provide a good summery of the topics discussed. One thing to consider however is the fact there are 8 headings that deal with the Hospice of Humboldt, and 2 that deal with retrofits and savings.

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.
Most paragraphs have good topic sentences, however some paragraphs seem unnecessary such as the Hospice of Humboldt's benefits.

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)
For the most part the website avoids being blatantly bias, however a lot of time is spent praising the Hospice of Humboldt, with statement such as “Hospice of Humboldt provides a generous benefit package”. Stay away from statements like this, because it sounds like this information was taken for the Hospice of Humboldt website.

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 visual aids were helpful, there are enough to keep me interested, but not enough to distract form the text. Adding a table with the kWh/cost information, might be helpful to the reader.

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 figures are labeled, this helps the reader understand the retrofit the RCEA did, such as pictures of wall sconces, and the entry way.

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.
This website does show the energy and money usage before and after the retrofits, however it would be helpful to add a place where you talk about why the Hospice of Humboldt is spending more, and using more energy.

Are there any questions you have about the topic that are not addressed? Are the sources of the information clearly presented under “References”?
Why did the retrofit cause them to lose money?

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 list of links Is very helpful, however the only links I could find are at the bottom of the website. I think the website could improve by adding links within the text.
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?
This website is a good length, however the section about the Hospice of Humboldt is a little to much, removing the “Benefits” section could help keep the reader attention.

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 all of these.

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

The website is very detailed, and it has strong visual aids that help the reader understand what the RCEA did.

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

Shorten the section about the Hospice of Humboldt and add links within the text of the webpage.

Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors)

Very good start, not much work needed.

--Jacobmoore

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 the target audience is people looking for a hospice. More information about the retrofit and RCEA projections is necessary. 2. Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout? The information is easy to navigate, but there is little information about the energy savings. 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 successful but there are headings lacking ex. CO2 savings 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. There are clear topic sentences for each 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 not technical communication, so far it feels like an advertisement. Extremely bias. 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 photograph is great. The graph is very hard to read, and the tables are missing. 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, the one graph is not well depicted or described. A table of the energy cost from one year before retrofit to one year after. 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. No, the CO2 emissions saved or loss are not listed. 9. Are there any questions you have about the topic that are not addressed? Are the sources of the information clearly presented under “References”? How many bulbs and what lights were changed during the retrofit. 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 links to many unrelated sites that could be taken away. Adding the RCEA site link would be helpful. 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? It is too short because it is missing information about RCEA and the projected analysis. 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, the banner and RCEA categories are correct.

13. List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) The history of the hospice is informative. Also the graph is useful.

14. List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) There should be a lot less information about the hospice and how it works, this is all bias unneeded information.

15. Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors) Do you work for the Hospice? There needs to be a lot more technical writing about the energy used before and after, even if the retrofit didn’t save CO2 or money. The lights seem to work great. --Jacobmoore