Talk:RCEA energy audit reviews/Vellutini Baking Company

From Appropedia
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.