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.