Peer Review
--Savage.daniele
Name of Editor: Daniele Peters
Contact Information: dbp9@humboldt.edu
Names of Writers: David Colvin and Bradon Storer
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 anyone wanting to find more information about a working greywater treatment system. Anyone could understand this site without any prior knowledge on the subject.
2. Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout?
The layout is perfect and it is very easy to navigate through the page, although the pictures are not aligned well.
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 superb and are in a logical order.
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 paragraphs need to have topic sentences. Maybe describing the purpose of each part of the process at the beginning of the paragraph would be better. The paragraphs are very complex, it may help to number each step in the section.
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)
Good language that follows a professional and technical genre. Some grammar errors and comma slices. This needs to be read through and edited again.
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?
Great pictures. Two of the pictures are overlapping each other and very unclear. The drawings are magnificent. The alignment of the pictures can also be improved.
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, except for the first one. It should be given a title. The figures are very well described and compliment the text impeccably.
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”?
Good sources throughout text and at the end of page.
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?
Yes. Great links! There is a good amount and they are at the same technicality level. Relevance is very clear. A summary could be useful but the link names are descriptive enough.
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 page is a little too long. Try to simplify the processes in each step. Try numbering or bulleting.
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, the page has both.
13. List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
• Good layout
• Easy to navigate
• Descriptive headings
• Excellent pictures
• Superb drawings
• Wonderful descriptions
14. List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
• Overlapping pictures
• Lengthy
• Complicated paragraphs
• Grammar errors
15. Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors)
Great job. I feel very informed after reading this site. Try simplifying processes into defined steps. Pictures need adjustment. Ready other than a few minor grammatical errors. Read it over out loud.
--Savage.daniele
Starting Comments
Missing header {{115inprogress|December 18th, 2009}} and category. See instructions.
--Lonny 05:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Shaffer Smith'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. I feel the target audience is anyone who is interested in greywater treatment and if it’s proven to be effective.
2.Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout? I think your layout is great. Reading through your page was both smooth and informative. I felt like I really had a grasp on the system after reading your article the first time. I like how each section is a part of the system with the corresponding pictures.
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. I think your headings are good, with a minor couple exceptions. “System” should be “Greywater System” to be more descriptive. Also, “Next Step” is descriptive, but maybe “Finalization” or something like that would ring better. Oh, and “House” should be more descriptive.
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. I think you topic sentences for all your paragraphs are great. I looked at each one and they all are descriptive of their paragraph.
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) Yes, the writing is totally objective. It seems appropriate when you use the word “unfortunately” in the last paragraph due to the circumstances, but you might want to mention why it’s unfortunate. Are they at risk not following a regulation?
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 titles of some of the drawings and photos start out with “picture of…” or “drawing of...” I would get rid of that and leave the words that follow. I think a title for the first picture would strengthen your page.
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. You refer to one picture, using a figure number, which is great. And you also have figure numbers on other helpful images but you don’t refer to those when there are definitely places in your writing where you could. It would be an easy addition. Maybe to picture at the very bottom after the bulk of writing to spice it up. Great pictures and diagrams!
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.
9.Are there any questions you have about the topic that are not addressed? Are the sources of the information clearly presented under “References”? You need a references section to clearly cite your sources.
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? More links would be helpful. One example is for CCAT which has a page in appropedia. You could make an in-text link to their appropedia home page when you mention it in your “cost” paragraph. I know you
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? I think you’ve made your page an appropriate 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? Yes and yes. Good job.
13.List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) I think you have a very strong start. Like I said earlier, I think it is written well, it’s easy to read (not too complicated), and very informative. You balanced your text and pictures nicely.
14.List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) Honestly, it looks like you are almost there with minor improvements to be made. One thing I haven’t mentioned yet is that you might want to end with a wrap-up or conclusion of some kind other than “Regulations” which is your last paragraph (this one’s up to you).
15.Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors) Good job. I’m impressed with your page.