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!
= David W = [[User:David W|'''David Wittmers Comments''']] 1. Who do you feel is the target audience for the writing in this document? '''I believe it is apparent that the target audience is mainly those who have no prior knowledge of greywater marshes and are curious to learn about them.<br>'''2. Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout? '''Under the heading “The Marsh” It is stated that there are four parts. It could be a bit easier to find the information on each of the four.<br>'''3. Are headings used successfully? Are enough headings used? If so, are they specific enough? Are the headings in logical order? '''I believe the “How Does it Work?” section should be broken into a few smaller subheadings and/or bullets; the information is a bit dense. I think using level two or three headings for each of the four parts of the system would be more visually appealing. Also, there are two headings including the word “it”; only one is capitalized.<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? '''Most topic sentences are actually quite helpful to the proceeding information. However, there are a few paragraphs throughout the page with only one sentence. For instance, the overflow basin is only briefly mentioned. Also, the subject of construction could use at least a few more comments.<br>'''5. Is the writing objective? Remember this is a technical communication. Make suggestions to avoid bias or opinion in sentences. '''I believe the writing was managed well in regards to bias. In the sentence about saving a great amount of money by doing the labor themselves, maybe an estimate of hours would be helpful to understand the measure in question.<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? '''Although the pictures are very helpful, it is a bit hard to visualize the system as a whole. A good addition to the graphics would be a diagram of the system from start to finish incorporating labels.<br>'''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? '''There is little or no reference to the pictures. Most pictures are self explanatory or explained in caption. I think an explanation of the function of a baffle would be very helpful. There is a lot of information about hyacinths; it would be nice if there was a captioned photo particularly depicting them.<br>'''<u>8. Not RCEA</u>'''<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”? '''On the subject of rules and regulations it is noted that the marsh in question is not legal. I find myself curious of the particulars. Where this greywater pond is falling short of regulation. It is unclear what info on your page was derived from your one source.<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? '''There are some very helpful links within the page. One of the links, “blackwater” is broken. The words turbidity and floccules are a bit technical. Links to find info or at least definitions of these two words would be helpful. Also, the link “CCAT” assumes that all viewers know what that acronym stands for.<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? '''This document is of sufficient length. It wouldn’t hurt to have a bit more information on the construction, overflow basin, and legality topics.<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? '''Yes'''. 13. List the strengths of document – <br>'''This page has an appealing layout in regards to the images. The text is held in the center with the supporting photos kept on the right or left. The page explained what greywater was at the beginning of the page rather than jumping right into the mechanisms of the marsh. There were very little spelling or grammar errors.''' 14. List areas for improvement – <br>'''The first picture leaves a large open space in between it and the contents. Fig.3 is the least interesting photo on the page because there are already many photos of the marsh itself; there is no new content. It could be replaced with a photo showing the changes in color of the hyacinth. There is a paragraph that ends in three words just under Fig.4. This layout issue could be arranged somehow so that this unaesthetic look is alleviated. As stated earlier, I think the main portion of the body (How Does it Work?) could use some separation.''' <br>15. Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors)<br>'''The first thing I notice is the abbreviation CCAT. Although just about anyone on campus knows what it is, you should define this. Next, I noticed the link “blackwater” does not work; once fixed, I would only make one of them a link. I suggest you either define or link to appropedia for the words bioremediation, turbidity, and floccules. “It’s” is capitalized in one of your headings. Under the heading “Time”, there is a typo (work to be down). There are three nearly identical statements within the page (Work on this grey water system started in April 2009. It is a work in progress).<br>'''[[User:David W|'''David Wittmers 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