Talk:RCEA energy audit reviews/Sequoia Humane Society: Difference between revisions

Savings issue

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Why don't the actual annual savings correspond to the actual monthly savings in the following table?

	RCEA's Projected Savings	Actual Savings
Total Savings per Year	$1682.59	$201.37
Monthly Savings	$140.22	$20.14

I.e. RCEA project year/12 = monthly... but not so for actual.

Thanks, --Lonny 18:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:ElisabethJ/Peer review comments

Name of Editor: Elisabeth Johnson Contact Information: ej22@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.

    I think that the target audience of the page is people who know a little about  the Redwood Coast Energy Authority and the retrofits that they helped to implement for many local businesses        and organizations. The writing is appropriate for these people.

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

     The layout was well organized.

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  only heading I feel needs inprovement is the Conclusion heading, which I feel could be more desciptive, maybe “ outcomes of the retrofits” or “Did the retrofits achieve the predicted  outcomes?”.

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.

    Topic sentences were good.

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)

    Well written.

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 think that a picture of the building with it's sign or logo would be nice. I like the graph.

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 is no reference to the photos in the texts (no figure numbers). The captions describe the figures well. Maybe describe in the text body too. 

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 graph is nice, the only improvement I would suggest is color if you know how to do that. I liked that you included the total price the payback time was calculated from.

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 sources of the information are cited however I am not sure if a specific citation format.

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?

    I would suggest adding some links that provide the reader with some information on lightning ballasts and what T12 and T8 bulbs are. This would provide a little technical background for those who seek it.

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?

    I would try to lengthen the page a little. Add some info on how many lights actually were replaced, how many hours per day the lights are used.

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 RCEA is displayed at the top but not at the bottom. 

13.List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) I think that the page has a good layout over all. The placement of the lighting photos is nice, and will be great with the include citing in the text.

14.List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) I would definitely like to see a picture with a logo for the humane society, to make them identifieable to the public via imagery.

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

User:ElisabethJ/Peer review comments

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.

   Yes the writing is appropriate for this audience.

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

   Yes the webpage is easy to navigate with a different heading for each topic.

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 are appropriate for the webpage but the order to me is a little off. My suggestion is to place them in more of a chronological order. "About the Organization" then "What influenced the Retrofit"  then "What were the Retrofits" then "How did the Retrofits Influence the Behavior of the Client" and finally "Would the client have completed the retrofit without the RCEA." 

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, all the paragraphs have a topic sentence that correlates with the rest of the 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 objective, there are a few places where you used 'big.'

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 picture are mostly clear, but the second photograph it a little hard to see the lighting especially when the pictures are so small, you could possibly make the photos a bit bigger.

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.

    I feel like the text under the photographs is a bit long, maybe shorten it to, "Retrofitted lights in the kennel area" or "Upgraded lighting through out the shelter."

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 table and graph are easy to read and 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”?

    No, everything seems covered.

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?

    Yes there are four references, which seems to be enough and they are all relevant and add good insight to 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 about three pages long and seems to addressed everything needed.

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 RCEA category is not at the bottom of the page.

13.List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) The page over all looks great and is easy to read.

14.List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) Kenel is spelled kennel and under "What were Retrofits" shelters should be shelter's.

User:JuliaA/Peer review