Editing Talk:The Bottoms wildlife pond greywater marsh

= Chris Wells' Peer Edit  =

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. -- '''I feel that the audience consists of Arcata residence and those with some background knowledge of the sciences. The writing is very descriptive so that anybody could understand the workings of the greywater marsh.''' 

2. Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout?'''--The information is easy to get around with the table of contents and the different sections are well organized. I think that this requires no re-thinking and should be kept the way it is.''' 

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 correctly and show in the table of contents. I do think that ‘plants’ should come after construction to make the flow of the page better.''' 

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 decent topic sentence for every section but I feel some could be stronger like the ‘how does it work’ section and the ‘plants’ section. To best improve it you should just add a better description of what is to come rather than getting started right away.''' 

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) '''-- Everything presented in this webpage is very clear and unbiased, mainly because it is hard to be so on a topic such as this one. There are no outlandish opinions being made.''' 

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 . '''-- Each figure/picture was easy to understand and was properly labels so it was easy to find when referenced. The only addition I would suggest would be a model on how it works to show the process, so it would be easier.''' 

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. --'''The Author does make references to the picture placed in this page and does so effectively so there is no confusion. From what I can see, all of the sources are cited and displayed at the bottom of the page.''' 

8. Are there any questions you have about the topic that are not addressed? Are the sources of the information clearly presented under “References”? -- '''I don’t have any specific questions about the marshes. There is proper use of references and links to the references are provided.''' 

9. 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, there are a few links to other pages that have similar topics, and these are all displayed correctly. I am able to connect the relevance of each reference to this page.''' 

10. 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 a good length and is well planned out and organized. I think that there could be some shortening in some places where it may be to wordy, but overall it addresses all of what is needed and clear.''' 

11. 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, this page has all of the necessary banners on the webpage.''' 

12. List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) '''-- This document is overall well written and researched. I think both did a great job of describing their topic and It seems that they had taken the time to make sure their facts were straight and took their own pictures at the source.''' 

13. List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) '''-- I noticed at the beginning of the page there is a small typo, but not much of an issue. I think that here could be a longer explanation of how the system is working today and maybe include some sort of conversation that you may have had with a person on the site.''' 

14. Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors) '''-- Great job. The page has a lot of progress and I’m sure it will look better as time goes on.<br>'''

<br>

= 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''']] 

= David W  =

[[User:David W|'''David Wittmers Comments''']] 

1. Who do you feel is the target audience for the writing in this document?&nbsp; 

&nbsp;'''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?&nbsp; 

&nbsp;'''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?&nbsp; 

&nbsp;'''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''']]
@@ Line 27: / Line 27: @@
 . List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) '''-- I noticed at the beginning of the page there is a small typo, but not much of an issue. I think that here could be a longer explanation of how the system is working today and maybe include some sort of conversation that you may have had with a person on the site.'''
 . Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors) '''-- Great job. The page has a lot of progress and I’m sure it will look better as time goes on.<br>'''
 <br>
 = KBK7 EDIT  =
@@ Line 99: / Line 99: @@
 . 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''']]
-= Nathan's Comments<br>  =
-. 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. Arcata Community members and people looking for information about functioning greywater systems.<br>2. Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout? Yes the page is laid out very well<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&nbsp; two headings? If so, suggest some headings. Maybe some level two headings could be nice, to break up some of the text.<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.The topic sentences work for explaining the paragraph<br>5. Is the writing objective? Remember this is a technical communication. Make suggestions to avoid bias or opinion insentences. (For example: eliminate adjectives/adverbs: very, many, large, etc) The writing is objective<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? I wish there was a figure that showed visually how a grey water system worked<br>
-. 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?&nbsp; make suggestions to better incorporate figures Yes there is figure numbers<br>8. If this is a RCEA page have the writer clearly presented the bottom line (predicted money and carbon dioxide emissions saved versus actual money and carbon dioxide<br>emissions saved) in a table or graphical format? Suggest improvements to make this comparison easier for the reader to understand. N/A<br>9. Are there any questions you have about the topic that are not addressed? Are the&nbsp; sources of the information clearly presented under “References”? How is the grey watere system functioning now and what are any future plans for it 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 asummary of references? Maybe more links would be nice
-. 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 seems a little long maybe try to trim some of the nonessential explanations
-. 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>yup
-. List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)<br>The document is very well done, but all text.<br>14. List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)<br>Not a lot, but it does seem long, some more visual aids would be nice.<br>15. Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors)<br>Very good job.<br>