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 plumbing
(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!
==Tahsa Sturgis' Peer Review:<br>== [[User:Tahsa.Sturgis|Tahsa.Sturgis]] '''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 seems to be anyone interested in knowing how greywater systems work. The writing style is very appropriate, it does a good job of explaining the process of greywater systems so that anyone could understand the material. '''2.Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout?''' Information presented is very easy to navigate. However, the pictures are aligned awkwardly in the middle and vary in size. Having a consistent place for pictures, and smaller sizes would help the overall flow of the layout. Overall, the information is clear and easy to find. '''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 set up in a great order that allows the reader to fully grasp the concepts presented in each section. They are all in logical order and flow very nicely with the pictures. '''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 are clear for each subject, for the most part, and are followed up nicely with relevant discussions for each paragraph. The only suggestion I would make is better transitional sentences at the end of each paragraph, but it works ok the way it is too. '''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 very concise and not too technical. Overall, the writing does a very good job of presenting the facts with no bias. There are a few grammatical errors. '''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 photographs are awkwardly placed and better placement could help the layout. It’s difficult on the eyes to have large pictures in the middle parts of the page between the texts. This can be easily fixed though and the pictures chosen compliment the information very well. '''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.''' Yes, all the figures have figure numbers except for the first picture. Nice captions on the pictures and they do a great job of giving a visual to the processes described. Better alignment and size are my suggestions for improvement. '''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.''' N/A '''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 presented information was very clear, so I have no questions about anything that wasn’t addressed. The sources are properly cited at the bottom of the page under References. '''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 is one link to an outside source and two links to the same source in appropedia. I would suggest a few more outside links and not having two links to the same source (ex: the two greywater links). The relevance of selected sites is clear and there is a summary of references at the bottom of the page. '''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 good length but seems longer because the placement and size of the pictures. This can be fixed by editing the sizes and alignment of the pictures. '''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?''' There is an ENGR 115 progress banner and the page has the correct categories at the bottom of the page. '''13.List the strengths of document''' * Clear information * Easy to understand * Great Visuals * Nice Layout * Order of Headings flows nicely * Very good incorporation of Figures that explain how each process looks and works '''14.List areas for improvement''' * Better placement of pictures * Smaller figures in better position so the page doesn’t seem as long * Few grammatical errors * More links to relevant outside sources '''15.Overall comments''' The page has great information that is easy to follow. The pictures and figures are picked out nicely for each subject and help the reader fully understand how greywater systems work. The few improvements are the aligning and sizing of the pictures as wells as more links to relevant sources. Great job overall, keep it up! [[User:Tahsa.Sturgis|Tahsa.Sturgis]]
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