Editing Talk:RCEA energy audit reviews/Wildberries Marketplace

Page created by [[User:David.Bloch|David Bloch]] and [[User:shaffer08|Shaffer Smith]], two current Environmental Resources Engineering Students at Cal Poly Humboldt.

==Peer Revisions==
<big>Peer Review: [[User:Charles_Swanson|Charles Swanson]]</big><br />
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.	<br /><br />-The audience seems appropriate, the information is well organized and directed to a broad audience.  Good job.<br /><br />
2.	Is the information presented easy to navigate?  Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout?  	<br /><br />-The layout is good, I like the paragraph sizing, and major heading use.  <br />-Add some bulleted lists of retrofits or improvements or goals.  <br />-Subheadings can lead the reader to new information faster, try breaking up some of your text. <br /><br /> 

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.	<br /><br />-An “RCEA” subheading might be appropriate, a little background on that organization and their efforts in conjunction with this project and Wildberries’ goals.<br />
-“Overview” can be broken down into building history, organizational history, present structural considerations (both site specific and operational).  <br />
-“Retrofit Effects” and “Post-Retrofit Analysis” seem to imply the same thing.  “Post-Retrofit Analysis” actually contains interview information, which is not really analysis.  Try “Further Considerations” or “Project Review”.<br /><br />
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. 	<br /><br />-The first sentence in “Lighting Retrofit” is speculative and subjective, try to avoid making personal statements that aren’t factual.  Rework the “fact” that grocery stores require more lighting than other retail stores, or else stick to the rest of the paragraph that supports their use of lighting 24 hrs a day for various jobs.<br />
-By the last section I have forgotten who Phil Ricord is and need to be reminded that he is the founder/president.<br />
-“Retrofit Effects” first sentence could use a numbered link to the graph and should be reworded to the effect that “following RCEA’s lighting retrofit, Wildberries saw an initial decline in energy consumption compared to the same month of the prior year.”  The graph is a little vague on this point because the date axis does not list the actual date or month of the retrofit, and that month of the prior year is also not clearly labeled.  The axis labels skip a few months which is confusing.  It looks like the retrofit occurred in March ’08? And it is difficult to pinpoint March’07.  Supplemental charts could better illustrate the seasonal trends and their comparison in relation to savings.<br /><br />
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)	<br /><br />
-The writing is mostly objective, good job.  Some subjective statements and adjectives such as “vast”, “very”, “immediate”, “clearly”, “very probable”.  Try “relatively”, then put into a relative context to a known fact or measurement supported by your data, otherwise omit such statements.<br />
-Avoid use of “they” and “their”, to the reader you are “them”, and so in your writing consider yourself a part of this organization on whose behalf you are making this analysis.  Objectivity occurs in the third person.  “When the RCEA initially performed an energy audit for Wildberries, they estimated that the store…”  try: “The initial RCEA energy audit estimated…”.<br /><br />
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?	<br /><br />-The photos are good, try adding a caption to the photo of the store room.
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.	<br /><br />
-There are no figure references.  You could refer to the type of lighting present in the images in the text with numbered links, or external links in the captions.<br /><br />
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.	<br /><br />-Your memo mentions your plans to expand on this category.  A chart dealing with relative CO2 savings.  A chart with relative cost savings incorporating the heater use in some way.  Perhaps you could find out the cost analysis of the heater use for Wildberries and incorporate that into your RCEA data, this would add critical accuracy to your data and also supplement RCEA’s analysis nicely.<br /><br />
9.	Are there any questions you have about the topic that are not addressed?  Are the sources of the information clearly presented under “References”?	<br /><br />-Page needs “References” section.<br /><br />
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?	<br /><br />-There are a lot of Wiki links, you could probably add a few more links to the web as well, wiki pages are very wordy and have a lot of information, find some linked sites that have more graphics to supplement your words. <br />
-Many of the links are dead ends.<br />
-Add a link to the RCEA home site (www).<br />
-Your CO2 link is to what CO2 is instead of the relevance of CO2 emissions or how to calculate them.<br /><br />
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?	<br /><br />-The document is a bit short, you could use some more analysis of the projected vs. collected data.  <br />-Address what the RCEA is and what this project is.<br /><br />
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?	<br /><br />-Yes, all applicable categories are present.<br /><br /><br />


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

-The document is well formatted with good images. <br /> -Information is concise and relevant.  <br />-Overall attitude of presentation is fairly objective and has a positive feel.<br /><br /><br />


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

-The graph needs to be a little bigger.<br />

-Review objectivity and omit subjective statements and adjectives not supported by factual data.  Any speculation should be in quotations and come from the person you interviewed.<br />

-Add information about RCEA.<br />

-Review grammar, I can hear you speaking while I’m reading.  Try to word sentences as complete statements and become aware of sentences that appear as you would speak them.<br />

-Fix broken links, and add web links.<br /><br /><br />

15.	Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors)<br /><br />

-The page flows well, and with a little more work will complete the retrofit analysis.  <br />-I like the comparison to the equivalent in cars, whales and elephants.  <br />Good Job.<br />
<big>Peer Review: [[User:Charles_Swanson|Charles Swanson]]</big><


==Review: Logan Halstrom==

[[user:Lhalstrom|Logan Halstrom]]

'''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.'''

This article seems targeted toward the people who could be customers in Wildberries. It presents the information as a component to a part of their lives and it gives the information in a way that is interesting to them and that they can understand.


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

Between headings and graphics, it is easy to locate specific information by just glancing over the page. The only information I found to be less apparent was the analysis of the accuracy of RCEA's predictions. Here, the reader must compare previously stated numbers with other numbers to infer the result. If there was a graph or table added to supplement the current one by showing immediate month comparisons, the differences might be more obvious to the reader.


'''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.'''

I found that the headings were very appropriate and directed the information in a manner that flowed smoothly. Perhaps, if some sub-headings were added, it would be easier for a reader to locate information at a glance, like dividing the lighting retrofit section into specific parts, but I feel that without these changes, the article is still just as effective at presenting the information.


'''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 is a topic sentence for every paragraph that I feel should require one. Two that could be made more clear are the third paragraph in the Overview section so that it is more obvious from the start that the paragraph is about retrofit history, and the second paragraph in the Retrofit Effects section had a confusingly worded topic sentence, that will be much more effective when edited.


'''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)'''

Bias did not seem like an issue when I read this article. The description of Wildberries was fair from any viewpoint and the calculations of the results were not made to seem favorable for one participant over the other. In defending the errors in RCEA's estimate, it did tend to imply that the author was perhaps trying to justify RCEA's position but this was not really a bias because the case they were making was an objectively valid one.


'''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 picture is very effective. Without reading anything else, the reader will know the basic subject of this article. I would have liked a description for the picture of the back room in Wildberries. The text gave a good description of what it is used for and why that added to the power bill, so it would be helpful if the picture reinforced that. The other picture and graph were effective as they are. The graph could have a basic description of what trend it shows.


'''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 are not figure numbers but there are directions in the text that signify figure references. Editing this will simply be a matter of inserting figure numbers rather than restructuring the paragraph. A caption on the graph would be helpful, and references are lacking, though this was listed as one of the outstanding issues in the memo. I feel that if these simple edits are made, the figures will be effective as they are.


'''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.'''

This bottom line was implied by the graph and the text but, as a reader, I did not feel it was totally obvious. If I could see a table juxtaposing numbers or a graph with before and after energy values side-by-side, I would be able to visual this difference more clearly. It would also help to perhaps add a calculation of the differences in the  values. Based on when the meeting for this project took place and also coming from a group where not all the data was present for our first draft, I think the data presentation is acceptable for this draft.


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

Does Wildberries have any concrete plans for retrofitting the refrigeration system in the future or is that just an obvious place to focus on next time, whenever that may be? Obviously, since there was not time to put in a References section, there are not sources presented under References, as addressed in the memo.


'''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 plenty of links. At first, I felt that there were too many and that some were unrelated, but I also, personally, like to have extra references, in case I want to explore a tangent. A few issues were the links about the retrofits, which for some reason did not work. I also felt that the link for carbon dioxide didn't really relate to the article as much as a link specifically describing the effects of carbon dioxide would. And again, the comparisons of the offset carbon dioxide were interesting links that I, as a reader, like to explore, but not necessarily relevant to the article. There is not a summary of references because there is not a reference section.


'''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 think that I would add to some sections and take away from others. The overview of Wildberries could be shortened, since the article is specifically about energy retrofits, but I think that adding some sub-headings would be enough for readers that are not interested in the Wilberries history to skip that section. I also think that the estimate analysis and the client response sections could be slightly elaborated on.


'''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'''

This document was easy to read and easy to understand. It gave information that was relevant and did not present extra data that would be unnecessary and complicating. It looked well balanced, it provided visual aids that were very helpful and not distracting, and it covered the goal of the project and made that apparent to the reader.


'''14. List areas for improvement'''

The main thing to enhance in this article is the RCEA estimate analysis. This is the purpose of the project and it is also the hardest to convey, so another table or graph would be very helpful. The graph you have now is a good description of the overall effect, so I think it has a part in the page, but I also think that the yearly fluctuations in power usage make it too confusing to use as the only model.


'''15. Overall comments'''

I thought that this was one of the better pages that I have looked at as far as completeness, effectiveness, and Appropedia knowledge. I felt that you knew what to cover and that the total combination of information you chose to cover was a perfect in that it was relevant and not superfluous. Furthermore, I know what it is like to have a late client meeting, so I want you to know that any criticism I give is with the full understanding that time was also a factor in your web page, and that many of the things I described were probably results of that. All of us could have put more in with more time.

[[user:Lhalstrom|Logan Halstrom]]


1.Students of Humboldt, appropriate.<br />
2Very easy to navigate. All info is easy to find.<br />
3Headings are used when needed and direct attention to new sections. Headings follow a very logical order seeming chronological.<br />
4Some topic sentences are to specific, they don’t give a broad overview of what the following paragraph is going to fully include. Look at the Lighting retrofit section specifically.<br />
5Stays away from opinions well.<br />
6Photos and graphs are easy to follow and greatly enhance the page. The information presented is very clear and easy to follow<br />
7Figures are not cited.<br />
8Yes, a graph is provided. And telling us in comparison the amount of CO2 is a very good approach.<br />
9No sources are givin under references.<br />
10Many links are provided all allowing further exploration of the topic. <br />
11Document is a good length, if any change is needed make it longer, however I don’t see a need for change.<br />
12yes<br />
13.	List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)<br />

A very thorough background section helped me understand the business better. The page looks great, the photos and the graphs presented enhance your page greatly.<br />


14.	List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)<br />
In the retrofit effects section, the last sentence seems out of place and by itself even though it relates to the topic, try to throw it in with everything else<br />



15.	Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors)<br />

Great looking page you have little work to do from now on, good job.<br />


[[user:ndb21|Nathan Braun]]
@@ Line 160: / Line 160: @@
 [[user:ndb21|Nathan Braun]]
-==Review: Nathan Hawk==
-[[user:Noh2|Nathan Hawk]]
-'''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 towards individuals who want to know about Wildberries electrical usage and what they have done to cut down on electrical
-'''2. Is the information presented easy to navigate?  Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout?'''
-It was fairly easy to navigate. A more descriptive table of contents with more sections could make certain info easier to find
-'''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.'''
-I would create a few more headings in order split up and better describe the overview sections. Some level 2 heading would be nice to see. Other than that the headings are in good logical order and place.
-'''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 say u did a good job with your topic sentences and relating your fallowing sentences. In the post retrofit section, 1st paragraph, you explain how Phil is highly pleased with the retrofit, but then go on to say parts of his decisions were unwise. You might want to better organize this part. Maybe a separate section for that part
-'''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’s a few adjectives/adverbs you could look at.
-Ex. “highly probable” (retrofit effect/paragraph 2)
-Ex. “a lot more lighting” (lighting retrofit/paragraph 1)
-'''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 thought the pictures were good and well place. The graph is kind of hard to read, so you might want to enlarge it a lil.
-'''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.'''
-Only two out of four figures included text. You should add text to the others. I liked the text you added to the picture who had it.
-'''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 is all clearly stated in the page. If possible you could add future predictions for these rates.
-'''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 is a photovoltaic system? You mentioned this but did not explain what it was.
-Yes sources were clearly presented.
-'''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 couldn’t find any links to related sites or a summary of references. Make sure this gets done
-'''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 of good length. All the information that was asked for seems to be there.
-'''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'''
-The page has a good fluid order to it. I liked the pictures you took to help explain the sections. The writing was mostly all very easy to understand. It’s a very good first draft.
-'''14. List areas for improvement'''
-Explain what CFL bulbs are. (Is that a prefix for something?)
-Retrofit effect/paragraph 2 -  “ …more warmth. Thus, while…- this part seems like it could be written better.
-'''15. Overall comments'''
-Good job on the page, it shouldn’t take long for you to finish a final version due to your strong efforts on the first draft.
-[[user:Noh2|Nathan Hawk]]