We continue to develop resources related to the COVID-19 pandemic. See COVID-19 initiatives on Appropedia for more information.
Talk:RCEA energy audit reviews/Japhy's
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Daylene Miyahara's Comments
- 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 writing in the document is informative and is targeted towards an environmentalist audience that is interested in RCEA’s efforts and progress.
- 2.) Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout?
- The information is clearly divided under “Energy Retrofits” and “Analysis of Retrofits”. The writers include the changes made and the outcome of those changes; very easy to navigate.
- 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 effectively separate retrofits and results. Perhaps the document would be more effective with more headings. I would suggest headings maybe for background information either on the business or RCEA, Conclusion, References, and level two headings under the preexisting headings to make them more specific.
- 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.
- I would suggest putting the information in paragraph form. Bullets are useful and visually helpful, but the information and analysis would have more depth I think if tied together with topic and conclusion sentences.
- 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 remains technical and without inappropriate bias while highlighting the success of the project.
- 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 graph provides great visual representation of the data, but it is a little small on the page. A little confusing because the data does not read from left to right chronologically, but with the cost variable, I am not sure how this could be done.
- 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.
- Sources should be cited. The figures are integrated into the text without captions but with correct units. Perhaps a data table could make the figure numbers clearer.
- 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.
- The comparison between predictions and results is clear in the text and is easily read with bullets, but I agree that a visual representation of projections vs. results (table, graph) could only improve the informative quality of the 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”?
- I would suggest adding a “References” heading to the page because it is very important to avoid plagiarism. I would like to know specific details such as bulb wattage, number of lights changed, how long the lights are kept on, and how long it has taken Japhy’s to see these results. I would like to know more about RCEA.
- 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 author does provide links to related sites. The link to the business’s website is relevant and the link to Google maps visually shows the location of the restaurant. Additional links could perhaps be used to increase credibility of the page.
- 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 short, no denying that. I would expand on present data, provide more background information on RCEA and the project as a whole, and provide references.
- 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 banner and categories are present and easily located.
- 13.) List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
- The document is easy to read and straightforward. The graphic at the top of the page looks great.
- 14.) List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
- More content is needed, there should be paragraphs. There are too many bullets in the “Analysis of Retrofits.” References need to be included.
- 15.) Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors)
- On the page, only one of the authors is mentioned. Two heads are better than one. Don’t forget to write a lot; this project is meant for us to practice our technical writing skills, so be careful of being too general when describing the retrofits.