Main page
New page
Upload file
Help
Community portal
Recent changes
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Enable dark mode
Enable read mode
Log in
View history
What links here
Related changes
Page information
Editing
Talk:The Bottoms wildlife pond greywater marsh
(section)
From Appropedia
Warning!
You are not logged in.
Log in
or
create an account
to have your edits attributed to your username rather than your IP, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
= KBK7 EDIT = [[User:Kbk7|'''Kevin Kopp'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 the ENGR 115 class, thee general public and I believe the page clearly addresses to them.''' 2.Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout? '''The information is very easy to navigate; each section directly correlates to its heading so it is easy to find what may be needed to know.''' 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 headings are used successfully although some headings can be removed. I think the plants should not have there own section but rather be a footnote under the “how it works” section. Use an asterisk when you mention the water hyacinth because at first I thought it was a technique and not a plant. Also the “complications” section should be re-titled to something like “alternate systems used that failed” or something to that standard. Then move that section above the marsh section.''' 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. '''All the topic sentences coincide with the rest of their paragraphs.''' 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 and does not show any bias. I could not find adjective/adverb abuse in the page.''' 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 pictures all make sense but if possible it would be helpful to have a picture of the entire system on site at the bottoms grey water marsh and then if labels could be put on it to show where all four parts are in the system then it would be easier to understand the flow of the system.''' 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. '''Figure numbers appear to be used appropriately when needed.''' 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. '''Not for RCEA.''' 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 references are clearly presented. I would like to know on the page what the grey water marsh is missing to make it illegal. Are there any other reasons than the pond being exposed?''' 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 author provided plenty of links to legitimate sources that are helpful to the understanding of the system.''' 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 looks too be a very decent length but adding length should be avoided in the case of editing. It is on the lengthy side but still 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? '''The page contains both banners that are required.''' 13. List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)'''The document is very well done. Plenty of pictures to look at, clear and concise language to understand the process that is occurring and very well organized.''' 14. List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)'''The headings mentioned before should be adjusted and a few minor edits on the technical terms in the how it works section.''' 15. Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors) '''The project looks very well done and researched thoroughly. I believe that with a few minor adjustments the page will look very good and professional.''' [[User:Kbk7|'''Kevin Kopp's Comments''']]
Summary:
Warning!
All contributions to Appropedia are released under the CC-BY-SA-4.0 license unless otherwise noted (see
Appropedia:Copyrights
for details). If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here! You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource.
Do not submit copyrighted material without permission!
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.
OK