David Bloch's Peer Evaluation[edit source]
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 think the target audience for this document is someone with a preliminary knowledge of the basics of engineering, chemistry, and biology. My only recommendation would be to either simplify or explain some of the processes you mention, like BOD and particulate matter. Basically, why are these problems? Assume you are communicating with high school students.
2. Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout?
The layout is good overall. However, there are a lot of pictures and they constrict the text toward the middle of the page, especially for someone viewing the page on a lower resolution monitor. I would recommend making your page so that a horizontal line anywhere on the page would never pass through two pictures, no matter how narrow the screen 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 effectively. I personally don’t like how the subheadings are bigger and bolder than the main headings, though.
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 excellent.
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)
Very few subjective adverbs and adjectives were used. Words like large were only used to describe large particles. My only recommendation would be to find (ctrl-f or cmd-f) words like very and many and just delete them. Overall, quite objective for a document dealing with a known problem.
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?
It is difficult to specifically make out what some of the photographs are of. Try taking more pictures, zoomed out a little bit more and making the pictures a tiny bit bigger.
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 are used and the captions are effective.
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.
This is not an RCEA page.
9. Are there any questions you have about the topic that are not addressed? Are the sources of the information clearly presented under “References”?
I would like to know more about the effectiveness of the system in the past. Also, how often is it being used or not used? References are fine.
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 could be a few more links, so people could further expand their knowledge on topics you mention but do not cover extensively, like FOG filters, gravity feeding, BOD, etc.
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?
It is a little bit long. I think there is a lot of repeated material, maybe make the CCAT’s Greywater Marsh section more concise.
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 has the banner and correct categories.
13. List the strengths of document
Lots of information.
Easy to navigate.
Easy to read.
Lots of pictures with good descriptions
14. List areas for improvement
Cluttered.
Too few numbers. (we’re engineers! We like numbers!)
Grammar!
Put it in perspective
Fix broken links
15. Overall comments
Overall a solid project. Again, I would include more numbers and statistics about this greywater system, and maybe even CCAT in general to put the whole thing in perspective. Also, you might want to say why it is so important for the system to be fixed, and what that would bring CCAT and the environment. I know you mentioned it briefly, but I think you should expand on it! Lastly, please fix grammar errors. Get rid of unnecessary sos and likes, and remember “their” is possessive! I know how tough it is to have a late meeting with someone, and then being able to find the time to put the information into the webpage. Other than your missing section, though, this page is a solid one and I learned a lot from it!
Peer Evaluation performed by David Bloch
Adam McGuire's peer eval[edit source]
1. Seems about right for an ERE student. There is some assumed knowledge of BOD. Maybe provide a link which explains the concept a bit more.
2. For the most part yes. The information under FOG catcher was already covered in the above “filtering of solids” heading.
3. Yes. Are the suggested solutions yours? FOG catcher seems to be already covered in the above heading. Maybe number the problems like you did in above sections, or use subheadings for those bullted points in other sections (overall the same method).
4.Under the main headings the topic sentences are well done for the most part. Whos suggentions are they for solving the problem of standing water and hard to clean? Make that clear.
5.Overall, pretty good. Just make clear the section about suggestions. I like how you make clear this is work being done by students. Are there any definitions for what is acceptable for flow rates, amount of standing water, etc. for greywater systems or are the problems justified by student goals?
6.They are but I am familiar with some of the components, such as piping, connections, perferated tubing, etc. Maybe a closer view of the surge tank.
7.Yes and they also have captions. Maybe just explain some materials, platic barrels, type of plumbing, and perhaps reasons for choice of materials. A concise conceptual drawing of a greywater system and its components as they are located in realtion to each other would be a nice addition.
8.It is a CCAT page.
9.Time line of projects/ solutions to addressed problems. Ways students might get involved. Greywater legal restrictions, residential regulations? There is a reference section.
10.There are links provided. The link to the current CCAT greywater system was particularly helpful. They do fit the technical nature of the project. The bibliography on the current CCAT greywater page had a number of appropriate citations.
11.It seems about right, a lot of writing not a lot of pics in the overall system section. Are there any other problems? Too much money to fix? How long will it be closed?
12.Yes, to both. Not an RCEA page.
13. List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) Clear headings and topic sentences. A number of pictures of the actual components. Good links and references, not hard to tell where you got the info.
14. List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) I would like a conceptual drawing/ layout of the greywater system as it exists at CCAT. Make clear who is suggesting the solutions under the “suggested solutions” heading. Include a section about possible problems in the future, similar to that on the current CCAT greywater appropedia page. If applicable include funding numbers and issues. Maybe include solutions as subheadings of each respective problem. List problems in order of importance
15. Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors) Nice job to this point. The end sections are a bit confusing, are you making the suggestions? Maybe include some more technical info, system capacity, flow rates, component dimensions, if possible. A overall conceptual layout would be a nice visual.
Grant Rico's Peer Edit[edit source]
gar25 @9:15pm Nov 4th, 2009
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 page seems to be targeted toward people who have some knowledge of a greywater system but those who stumble across the page should have a solid understanding of how a greywater system works. Good job on the hyperlinks, but maybe include a few more, this will help people look up things that they may not be familiar with.
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 well formatted. The layout makes the information easy to find. Improvements to be made include bolding important words in the paragraphs. This will make it easier for people to find specific things within the webpage.
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.
- Generally clear and specific headings. Under the “CCAT’s Greywater Marsh” heading, level 2 headings should be used instead of bullet points. Bulleted points usually imply a concise list, and should not be used in front of text that is more than 2 lines long. Also the “Filtering of Solids” heading is above the image and not above the corresponding text. The same bulleted list issue is also present under the “Kitchen effluent particle filter” heading. Also the words in the heading should be capitalized.
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.
- Clear topic sentences for each paragraph have been provided for the most part. The first sentence of the “Filtering of Solids” subheading does not directly relate to the filtering of solids. Consider adding another sentence at the beginning that introduces what the filtering of solids is exactly.
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)
- Very objective writing. At the very end of the “Standing Water” subheading and the very beginning of the “Hard to Clean” subheading, the phrase: “big issue” is used twice. Just use “issue”, it says the same thing in a more objective fashion.
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 caption of Figure 1.1 has the word ‘to’ twice in a row. Effective and appropriate use of images. One suggestion of another image would be a diagram of a greywater system. This will make it much easier to visualize how it works and what is being discussed on 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.
- The images are referred to in the text using the figure numbers. When referring to a figure in the text, capitalize the word ‘figure’, it is a title. The captions are clear and specific.
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”?
- This was briefly mentioned in the fifth bullet point of the CCAT’s Greywater Marsh heading, but I would like there to be more of an emphasis on what is done with the final greywater. Also you should address what the benefits of using a greywater system are.
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 ENGR 115 link in the “CCAT Background” section does not work. It takes me to a ‘404 not found’ page. Also when I tried to go to the YouTube link on greywater marsh maintenance it did not function. It takes me to YouTube but at the top there is a red box that says ‘The URL contained a malformed video ID’. There is clear relevance for each site and there is a summary of references section.
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?
- Appropriate length for the document. Could possibly be a little bit longer, but not much.
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, has all categories and the links are functioning.
13. List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
The appearance of the page is very well executed. The images are balanced between both sides and the headings help break up and organize the monotony that there would be of just having text. The organization and formatting of the page may be one of the best aspects. There is very effective use of headings and subheadings making information convenient to navigate for anyone who reads this page. Great job on presenting the overall content, someone who has never heard of a greywater system would leave the page with a good idea of what it is and how it works. Good job on the summary of references, this adds a lot of credibility to your page.
14. List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
These are the things that I personally think need to be improved:
• Fix the YouTube and ENGR 115 links that aren’t working
• Add bold words. Read Jakob Nielsen's article on writing a web page, he does a good job of explaining why this is important.
• Fix the “Filtering of Solids” heading. It is staggered above the image.
• The “Kitchen effluent particle filter” and “CCAT’s Greywater Marsh” bulleted lists should be changed into subheadings.
• Maybe add a bit more detail to sections here and there, your webpage could be slightly longer. But do not add too much.
• Read over your entire document and think about how you could write each sentence in a more objective writing style. Most sentences are very good but there are a few that could be improved.
• You should re-read the last sentence of the second bulletpoint under the “CCAT’s Greywater Marsh” heading. I think you meant to say “… are scooped out regularly.”
• Talk more about what is done with the finished greywater and why it is good for the environment to use greywater systems.
15. Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors) Overall excellent job, this page is defiantly one of the better pages that I have seen. Good job on explaining what a greywater system is and what it does. One thing I wish that had been emphasized more is the benefits of greywater systems and why they should be used.
Feel free to email me if you have any questions.
gar25 @9:15pm Nov 4th, 2009
Nathen Theobald's peer reveiw[edit source]
1. The target audience in this case would be anyone who has any interest in sustainable waste ‘gray’ water treatment. Though this page does seem more aimed toward engineering student, or a more technical audience than just the general public Writing is simple enough to understand easily, except for a few terms.
2. Easily navigable. Reasonably logical layout.
3. The headings are clear. Order is great. Maybe split the various parts of the system up into subheadings for ease of skimming. Some of it seems to be formatted differently, make formatting uniform and consistant.
4. The majority of the content has clear topic sentences. A few could be refined. Ideas are organized quite well.
5. Use more simple language. The page may be technical, just avoid unnecessary wordiness
6. Maybe point out important points on the picture.make picture format a little more uniform maybe?
7. Good job using figure numbers. Could link more. Figures have captions
8.
9. Yes, clearly cited. Sources clearly referenced
10. There are links. Could be more. Like maybe to the page of another greywater system
11. Document is good as far as length is concerned. Topics are covered and relatively complete
12. The warning is there. Engr115 present as well
13. List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
- Great Start
- Good content
- Well organized
14. List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
- Layout of pictures
- Wording
- Conventions and grammar. → basic revisions
15. Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors)
Great start. Perfect length. Good content. Well organized. Good first draft. Elaborate on what you have