Talk:RCEA energy audit reviews/Vellutini Baking Company

From Appropedia
Revision as of 18:30, 4 November 2009 by Ryan.Mack (talk | Contributions) (Created page with 'Name of Editor:<br> *Ryan Mack<br> Contact Information: <br> *<br> Names of Writers: <br> *Julia Allshouse and Taylor Edwards <br> <br><br> 1.Who do …')
(Difference) ← Older revision | Latest revision (Difference) | Newer revision → (Difference)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Name of Editor:

  • Ryan Mack

Contact Information:


Names of Writers:

  • Julia Allshouse and Taylor Edwards

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 interested in the energy and monetary savings involved in replacing incandescent bulbs with fluorescent ones.

2.Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout?
Yes. The table of contents allows for easy navigation.

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 only suggestion I have is to split the RCEA and Vellutini Baking Company tab into two and delete the “Facts to know” tab (adding it's contents to the Vellutini Baking Company tab).

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.
If you were to split the two as I suggested then each tabs content would begin with complete relevance to the title.

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 enough. The only subjective writing is in the summary – which calls for critical thinking.

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 first two pictures of the interview are perfect. The other images could be a lot bigger, though. A cost vs. time graph would be helpful to analyze the data as 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.

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.
Yes, this information is presented within a table. A more thorough use of graphs would help to interpret this data.

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 should change links to references. The references could include the RCEA Energy Audit Appropedia site.

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. RCEA and the baking company are linked within the site. This is just 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 document's length is perfect. It is 2.5 pages.

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, except the RCEA energy audit review tab at the bottom is missing.