Page created by David Bloch and Shaffer Smith, two current Environmental Resources Engineering Students at Humboldt State University.

Peer Revisions

[[User:Charles Swanson
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 audience seems appropriate, the information is well organized and directed to a broad audience. Good job.

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

-The layout is good, I like the paragraph sizing, and major heading use.
-Add some bulleted lists of retrofits or improvements or goals.
-Subheadings can lead the reader to new information faster, try breaking up some of your text.

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.

-An “RCEA” subheading might be appropriate, a little background on that organization and their efforts in conjunction with this project and Wildberries’ goals.
-“Overview” can be broken down into building history, organizational history, present structural considerations (both site specific and operational).
-“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”.

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 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.
-By the last section I have forgotten who Phil Ricord is and need to be reminded that he is the founder/president.
-“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.

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, 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.
-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…”.

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 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.

-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.

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.

-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.

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

-Page needs “References” section.

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 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.
-Many of the links are dead ends.
-Add a link to the RCEA home site (www).
-Your CO2 link is to what CO2 is instead of the relevance of CO2 emissions or how to calculate them.

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, you could use some more analysis of the projected vs. collected data.
-Address what the RCEA is and what this project is.

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, all applicable categories are present.



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

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



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

-The graph needs to be a little bigger.

-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.

-Add information about RCEA.

-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.

-Fix broken links, and add web links.


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

-The page flows well, and with a little more work will complete the retrofit analysis.
-I like the comparison to the equivalent in cars, whales and elephants.
Good Job.
User:Charles Swanson]]

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.