Talk:RCEA energy audit reviews/Vellutini Baking Company

From Appropedia
Revision as of 07:24, 5 November 2009 by Janoah59 (talk | Contributions) (→‎Janoah's comments: new section)
(Difference) ← Older revision | Latest revision (Difference) | Newer revision → (Difference)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Name of Editor:

  • Ryan Mack

Contact Information:

  • Macattack7174@hotmail.com

Names of Writers:

  • Julia Allshouse and Taylor Edwards



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.
The target audience is anyone interested in the energy and monetary savings involved in replacing incandescent bulbs with fluorescent ones.

2.Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout?
Yes. The table of contents allows for easy navigation.

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 suggestion I have is to split the RCEA and Vellutini Baking Company tab into two and delete the “Facts to know” tab (adding it's contents to the Vellutini Baking Company 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.
If you were to split the two as I suggested then each tabs content would begin with complete relevance to the title.

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 enough. The only subjective writing is in the summary – which calls for critical thinking.

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 first two pictures of the interview are perfect. The other images could be a lot bigger, though. A cost vs. time graph would be helpful to analyze the data as well.

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.

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, this information is presented within a table. A more thorough use of graphs would help to interpret this data.

9.Are there any questions you have about the topic that are not addressed? Are the sources of the information clearly presented under “References”?
You should change links to references. The references could include the RCEA Energy Audit Appropedia site.

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. RCEA and the baking company are linked within the site. This is just enough.

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's length is perfect. It is 2.5 pages.

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 and yes, except the RCEA energy audit review tab at the bottom is missing.

13.List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
This document is neat and concise. Instead of adding too much in paragraph form, you used a table, graph and figures to support your claim.

14.List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
Two more graphs would be nice – one with $/month and one with CO2/month offset by the lighting retrofits.

David W

David Wittmers Comments

1. Who do you feel is the target audience for the writing in this document?

The target audience for this information is those who may be curious about how much energy can be saved by switching from incandescent lighting to florescent lighting in a small shop.
2. Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout?

I would put the mission statement in a different font; bold, italic, color, or at least in a quotation. The Q&A session could also be put into a table or separated into two colors; one for Q, another for A.
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 questions that are listed under the “Facts to Know” heading should have their own heading. A sit down interview with questions and answers are not “Facts to know”. A heading named something like “Interview with owner” might be appropriate.
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.

  Essentially, there are only three or four paragraphs included on this page. They all seem to have relevant topic sentences. The last paragraph under the first heading has a topic sentence mentioning data that they analyzed. I think it would be helpful to be specific on the document they received containing that data. As is, someone may assume they gathered the data themselves.
5. Is the writing objective? Remember this is a technical communication. Make suggestions to avoid bias or opinion in sentences.

In the summary it is stated that the results are barely, if at all noticeable. This is in reference to the average kWh. Instead of writing “barely, if at all”, the percentage change in average kWh would be more objective.
6. Is each figure or photograph easy to understand?  Can you suggest another figure presents the information in a clearer manner?

 As a fellow student doing a similar project, it is obvious to me that the photos are of two students and the store owner. However, this could also be a photo of the store owner and his two children or employees. It would interest the viewer to see some photos of the actual retrofits done to the store.
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 from the text or captions to explain the photos. I would suggest only keeping one of these photos since they are very similar and add a caption respectively naming those in the photo. If photos of the retrofits were added, they could incorporate a caption such as “New florescent lighting”.
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 savings and lower emissions are easily understood in the concise table. Units are also included for each of the measurements. The graph on the other hand, does not imply the information as it was likely intended. The introduction informs the reader that the retrofit was done in July 2008. This date is referenced in the graph as “Approximately month 23”. The scale of the graph needs to be adjusted on both axes. The Y-axis range should be from 6000 to 9000. The X-axis should be labeled by months. The graph itself should be set to the right of the data and at least three times the size.
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 is no “References” heading. There is a link to the excel workbook but it is never stated whether or not this is where they got their data from for the calculations or who compiled the data within. There is also no reference to the audit summary page; I believe this where the estimates came from.
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 link entitled “Location to Vellutini Bakery” might be changed to “Directions to Vellutini bakery” seeing as the location is already given early on and the link leads you to a Google map. A reference to where they got the equation for calculating C02 emissions could be added.
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 a bit short considering the fact that the majority of its size is taken up by a spaced out Q&A session and a couple photos. One part of info that could be added could have to do with the actual retrofit. Maybe a summary of the amount of hours that went into the project or number of lights replaced.
12. Does the page have the “ENGR 115: In Progress” banner? Does the page have the correct categories at the end of page?

Yes.


13. List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
I like the idea of having all questions and answers in clear view. It gives you a temporary sense of hearing the actual conversation. The table under “Estimations and Calculations” is very clear and understandable.

14. List areas for improvement
Immediately after the first link to Vellutini Bakery there is “Vellutini Bakery”. It is mentioned that the service was free but also that it cost over 800$ (materials right?). You could include information about RCEA’s project; I don’t believe this service for free to anyone who asks them. Unless Vince miss-spoke, I believe incandescent needs to be florescent in one of your answers within the transcript. In the summary you state that the company would have had to of consumed more electricity after the retrofit for the kWh to stay the same. Consider the logic behind this comment.
The graph definitely needs work. Most of all, the x-axis units need to be adjusted so that someone can look at a spot on the graph and know what month it is. The graph does not start on Jan, so anyone who had the patience to count months from left to right would think that month 23 was Nov of who knows what year. You have a full year of data both before and after the retrofit; consider using each of those sets of data as separate series on the same graph for comparison.

15. Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors)
Try to imagine you stumbled upon this page with little or no knowledge of RCEA or our Eng 115 class. Introduce the people in the photos. Come up with a more eye catching photo to replace one of the near duplicates you have. You have a good start on the graph, excel is not always easy to get the results you want. Tutorials within can help, give yourself extra time to play with the features. Maybe create a few different versions of the graph before deciding on which one best represents what you’re trying to show the audience.


Nathan'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. Anyone who is interested in florescent light bulbs.

2. Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout? All the information is presented in an understandable manner.

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. Maybe change the facts to know to something to information and questions or something.

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 Facts to know header could have a better name.

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.

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? There are not enough figures and pictures to tell but those that are used are not just for decoration.

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 figures are used with figure numbers.

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 they used is a a little confusing but there is a link connecting the page to RCEA. Maybe they could rename the table they used and make it a little clearer.

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 is no references tab.

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 a lot of links to other relevant topics.

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?Its a good 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

13. List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) Concise, clearly does the project and displays the company and explains the retrofits.

14. List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) The page could use some fleshing out, the hard data could be shown better.

15. Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors) A solid paper that could be excellent with a little work.

Janoah'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.

The target audience is whoever is interested in RCEA retrofits and energy savings. No previous knowledge is required to understand this webpage other than what a kWh is. Perhaps the authors should define a kWh.

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. The information presented is clear and concise. I would recommend enlarging the graph.

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 used successfully. I do not think there are enough headings. I think the first heading, the “RCEA and the Vellutini Baking Company,” could be split into two separate 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.

Yes, good topic 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 is mostly objective with a few exceptions. In the summary the phrase, “the results are barely, if at all noticeable” is subjective. To avoid this you could rather just tell the results and let the reader decide if it is a small amount or not.

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?

Great photographs, however they both need captions. The table is very informative, good job. The graph should be enlarged and the time should be specified on the graph. Perhaps make a line graph from January to December and have multiple lines for the different years overlapping each other. This may better visually show the difference in power use.

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 graph and table need captions labeling the Figure, for example Figure 1. No, the figures are not described in the text. The writers need to write a paragraph explaining the graph. There is no reference to the graph or table.

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.

Great table. It presents all the information needed in a clear format.

9. Are there any questions you have about the topic that are not addressed? Are the sources of the information clearly presented under “References”?

What was the expected repayment time of the retrofit? The sources are clearly presented under “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?

Yes the authors provide links to related websites. They are not too technical for the reader however the link to RCEA energy audit reviews needs to be moved to the bottom of the page under ‘categories’. All the links are very relevant.

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 slightly too short. The authors need to add a paragraph referring to the table and graph. The authors should explain what is happening in the graph and why the table looks the way it looks.

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 page has the banner on top. The webpage only has the ENGR 115 category on the bottom. The RCEA link is in the content of the page and needs to be moved down to the categories.

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

Great layout. Easy to Read, good flow. Good table and good pictures. Good interview Q & A

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

The first heading should be split into two separate headings or have subheadings. In the second paragraph of the first heading it reads, “Vellutini Baking CompanyVellutini Baking Company.” This is a small error. Also, “RCEA offers this service for free” needs to be taken out because it is inaccurate. Later you say the retrofit cost $808.81. The graph needs improvement as I addressed in question 6. The page needs more writing. You write, “As a team, my partner and I analyzed data from the bakery to see if the RCEA's retrofit met the estimated savings in kWh and in dollars.” however, you did not show or write your analysis on the webpage.

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

Overall a very well organized report. After a few more edits and the additional paragraph is put in, I feel this webpage will be very professional and useful. Good job.