Monica's Comments[edit source]
Name of Editor: Monica Napoles Contact Information: mgn8@humboldt.edu Names of Writers: Andres Pineda and Bryan Schmitt
Writing Issue Comment here and discussion tab 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 for the document is collage students and adults interested in HSU’s activity. The writing is appropriate for the audience however some grammar errors diminish the quality (missing an occasional “s” or comma. Also, avoid using “this” as in “this environment” and “this light pollution” because it is informal. 2.Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout? The information is simple to navigate and the necessary information was easily found. To improve the layout, consider moving “The hours” to be found below “The old system” to make it more clear. 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 successfully and enough headings are used. As far as heading order, refer to the advice above. 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 for each paragraph are clear. All of the sentences of the paragraph do follow correctly. The topic sentence for “Funding” could be improved to be more fluid. Also for the “Funding” paragraph, a new calculation of what Plant Operations would have to pay would be an asset. 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 and presented in a technical fashion. As mentioned earlier, to avoid ownership try rewording sentences using “this” as in “this environment” and “this light pollution” and “these” as in “these lights.” Otherwise, there are no opinionated adjectives and adverbs. 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 easy to understand. The pictures of the current lights and the design of the lights to come are effective. The ‘sample hours’ picture, when enlarged, is too small to read. Another picture to include may be one of the Redwood bowl at night from the top of the stands to display the amount of light pollution given off. 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 figures are no referred to using figure numbers however each figure is described in the text with cited sources. The figures have captions but some of the captions can be simplified for better understanding. To better incorporate the figures, consider spacing the figures out among the text. 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. (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”? When was the proposal first drafted, and how long did it take for action to come about for the project? The sources are clearly presented 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 are links to related sites. Consider linking HSU and GC only once per paragraph when they first appear. Also, one of the links for Plant Ops was left in its extended form. All of the sites are relevant and proper for the audience. There is no summary of references. 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 of the right length. Additional information could be provided in “New System” to describe more of the process in detail. 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 does have the In Progress banner as well as the category at the bottom.
13.List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) The page covers all the aspects of the Redwood lighting in an organized way that’s easy to understand. The information could have been confusing but had great presentation.
14.List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) Be sure to comb through the document for grammar errors and punctuation details. Some of the sentences in “New System” and “Comparisons” may be re-structured because some of them are wordy or lacking flow.
Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors) You have an interesting page. I really like how you tied the change in lighting back to nature and the environment. Your information is thorough. (About the data from the proposal being outdated: state so within the page.)
Kayla Williams' Peer Review[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. Audience is addressed: “This site is dedicated for everyone interested in understanding the current lighting, future lighting, and reasons for retrofit.”
2. Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout? Easy to navigate, and I can find the necessary information when need be. I would start out with a “Why should I care?” paragraph in order to substantiate the importance of your page, or maybe you can incorporate that into a paragraph outlining the actual proposal instead of just going straight into the old and new system descriptions. You could actually set up an advantage vs. disadvantage structure as well, with bullets, that would facilitate understanding.
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. Headers perfectly descriptive, and enough are used. I would have more headers just because I would add more paragraphs detailing advantages/disadvantages, etc. Maybe add a paragraph of what the reader can do; can I actively participate? Those headers would be Advantages, Disadvantages, and Get Involved.
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. No, and I think topic sentences would be really helpful!! Then delve into the details. Definitely add a topic sentence for each paragraph. In the ‘Comparison’ paragraph there is a topic sentence but it doesn’t address what is talked about in the paragraph… make sure you’re telling the reader what you’re about to talk about!
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) For the most part. Words to remove…
‘Old System’ Paragraph: ‘only’ (line 3), ‘very’ (line 4 and 5)
‘Expected Construction and Completion Dates’ Paragraph: ‘very’ (line 6)
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? Slightly confusing captions. For example, one caption reads, “Acata Sports Complex, A similar lighting system to the proposed new ones.”
Acata should be Arcata. Are these lights on campus already? The next caption says they are from Musco Lighting; does this mean the pictures are from Musco or are the actual lights?
Items pictured are appropriate. Maybe a picture of a bat!
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 not used, and that could be very helpful as well because the items pictured are specifically talked about. That way the writers could make the captions for the pictures much simpler and clarify the images in the body of their page. This could make the captions less confusing as well.
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”? Is Wikipedia an acceptable source? Maybe briefly explain what exactly the Green Campus Program is/does. Was their proposal approved? If it was, when? Is everything in the proposal going through? I think a better organization of the exact proposal could be beneficial.
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 sources are appropriate and there are just the right number. Appropriate technicality. Relevancy is easily inferred, but not stated on the page. There is a list of references at the end.
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 could probably be a little longer. Keep the background info about the old system and then introduce the proposal. Add more about the specifics of the proposal. Consider a timeline organization: why it was proposed, outline of its’ parts, approval/dismissal, goals, implementation. Add advantages and disadvantages. Keep all following paragraphs (funding, hours, etc.) That would give your page a lot more info.
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 to all!
13. List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
Easy navigation.
Almost all writing is objective.
There are lots of details and statistics that give quantitative support for the lighting change and are non-wordy, powerful evidence.
Very solid start – headers are clear, descriptive.
Text is backed well: references are solid, and the terminology section is a nice addition. Images are clear and appropriately positioned in page.
14. List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
Explain more how the statistics contribute to the issue at hand – will make them more impactual.
Separate the portion about bats into a new paragraph (cool addition by the way! I never knew.)
One of the thumbnail images in the row of 6 goes outside the border – split up the images into 3 per line maybe.
I would work most on content organization – that will give you more information, complete your page, and make it flow.
Start the page with a picture of the redwood bowl to make more aesthetically pleasing and capture readers!
Work on clarity of sentences. This one in particular is confusing: “Since the Redwood Bowl is at a higher elevation than the rest of the town of Arcata there is a dispersion of light pollution during evening events onto the town.” Where is the pollution from? Is there more pollution on the field than in town? How is this affecting the lighting? Doesn’t make a lot of sense.
Explain the effects of lead-based poles.
15. Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors)
Writing is clear and informative—it’s a great start!
Links within the text are helpful.
With some of the issues you mentioned (pollution, bats) there is a lot of room for expansion and more explanation. It would strengthen your page!
Rebecca Ransom's Peer Edit[edit source]
1.I feel that the target audience is HSU students. I do not think it reaches a wider audience, and I would suggest trying to make it more general.
2.I think that the information is laid out well enough. It might be easier to understand if less abbreviations were used, especially for GC, I had to look back up at the beginning to get this one, and it is a relatively short phrase to type out.
3.The headings are used correctly. Although the first section describing the old system was vague and short. It may be better to include more about why the old system is in need of retrofitting.
4.The hour’s section was a little weak, and should probably be included in the old system section. This is background information. In the New system section the part about FC was not clear as to what you are talking about. Needs more clarification for the layman.
5.Yes the writing is objective and does not appear to have opinions in it.
6.No, the pictures of the current lights are pretty hard to see, and there probably doesn’t need to be three pictures from Musco showing the new lights. Also the light schedule is impossible to read.
7.No figure numbers, which could be utilized to make the page more readable and easy to understand. Also another table showing the costs and savings might make this page easier to understand.
9.I was having a hard time understanding how replacing 1500 Watt lights with 1500 Watt lights will save the university any money.
10.There are some links, but I might include one linking to information about the bats health in regards to light pollution.
11.It is a little short, and could probably use some more graphic representations of the information.
12. yes.
13.It looks pretty good right now, with a few minor improvements, it will look great. I like the many pictures, and the links were helpful in understanding the information.
14.There may be a few too many pictures of what the Musco lights look like, and if some of the links in the reference section were included in the body of the page the page would be more understandable. Also the first section was vague, and could have included more information that was included later, such as the hours section. The Page is a little short, and could use some more explanations, and tables.
15.Good job overall.
Brit Abney's Peer Review[edit source]
Name of Editor: Brit Abney Contact Information: bea14@humboldt.edu Names of Writers: Andres Pineda and Bryan Schmitt
Writing Issue Comment here and discussion tab 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 this document is meant for a fairly broad audience (all those interested enough in energy conservation to view it) but it has a lot of complex and technical terms. Though you already have some listed, definition and further explanation of such terms would be helpful and I believe necessary for the targeted audience. 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 navigate in relation to words and topics thanks to the abundant amount of links, photos and diagrams. However the numbers and data itself is a bit scattered throughout. Perhaps putting the numbers into a table like format would make it easier for the reader to see just how effective these new bulbs are for the redwood bowl. 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 very successful giving an idea of the paragraph below and organizing the information within the text itself. I believe enough headings exist though the heading titled “The hours” could be more specific. For example “The hours of bulb usage” or something along those lines. That way the reader knows more about what you are referring too. Other than this though, the headings do seem to follow 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 topic sentence in “New system” and “funding” could be stronger in reference to the text that they proceed. The “funding” paragraph appears to have a strong topic sentence as its second sentence so perhaps just a rearrangement there would suffice. However the others do have topic sentences that are followed well by information related to the topic. 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) If adverbs are too be used or opinions to be thrown in, back them up with evidence, facts, or reasoning for why it is you’ve phrased it as such. For example in the sentence “Now the expected date of construction and completion is around winter break, but a setback is very possible.” Why do you consider it to be very possible? Give reasoning for the supposed high possibility of set back or eliminate the adverb “very” entirely. 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 clear and self explanatory but the diagram is very small relative to the page. Is there any way to present such information (related to the hours of usage) in a more accessible manner? If so please do. Also as I have mentioned already it would be clearer if your data and numbers in new system to old system comparison were tabulated. 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 writer does refer to the figures with figure numbers though not many of them. Perhaps an expansion of the paragraph titled “the hours” would be helpful. The figures do have captions and are well labeled. Perhaps a diagram comparing how the light travels in the old system to how it travels in the new system would allow the readers to further view its benefit to the bat problem. 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. The page does have the writers clearly presented in the bottom box. However they lack a table comparing expected results and actual results entirely. They do have this information in the text, but they don’t have it all in the same place or in table format which I’ve suggested as an improvement a few times now. The table will make it so the reader can quickly and easily compare the expectations with the results without having to jump from paragraph to paragraph. 9. Are there any questions you have about the topic that are not addressed? Are the sources of the information clearly presented under “References”? How much energy does it save on a yearly basis instead of over the course of 25 years? How much money? How much less CO2? It would be a lot easier to think about the results if they were over the course of smaller amounts of time. Also how long will it take for these new bulbs to pay for themselves including labor/installation? How much will they profit HSU after that point? References have been clearly labeled. 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 relevance to each site is clear and there is certainly an abundance of them. If anything, the writer has too many links though I don’t see how a few extra links could be harmful. The summary of links is clearly posted 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 probably too short, in my own opinion. In an above comment I listed some more information that I was curious about so that could be added. Also more details in general would help, and more actual text in the paragraph “the hours” would make it so the reader knows more without having to bring up or view the diagram. 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 does in fact have the ENGR 115 in progress banner at the top and the correct category at the bottom. No refinement needed here.
13. List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
The document has an abundance of information, well illustrated diagrams, is organized, and very easy to navigate. Also the footnotes and references at the bottom along with some term definitions are a nice touch. Overall the page looks clean and easy to read, with little bias, and very straightforward information. Comments on how the old lights affect the bat population are a beneficial addition when explaining the advantages of the new system.
14. List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
Though the document has an abundance of information present, it is very spread out amongst the page. It is easy to navigate through paragraphs but I found myself jumping a lot to find information relevant to what I was reading at the time. Tabulated data is a much needed addition. Minor grammatical errors such as in the sentence “To relief both the local town and the bat population” the word relief is a verb and so should be spelt “relieve” instead. Diagrams could be added and “the hours” diagram could be easier to view.
15. Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors)
Great work for a first draft; you have all of the key pieces needed and even some above the required effort. If you polish it up in a few places, make it easier to read, and more accessible to viewers this page will look outstanding. Just try to keep in mind that though you understand and can follow all you have written, doesn’t mean any potential reader can. Make the page accessible and understandable to all.
Beth's Comments[edit source]
- L1, check out C-12. Perhaps an image at the top to draw in the reader
- I would avoid starting your page with a quote. I think it will date your page too much.
- I like your opening purpose statement. I would get HEIF into that opening line.
- Review your list of headings... It should be easier to tell that this page is about retrofitting a lighting system.
- Be sure to review all editing codes.
- Be sure to use conventions correctly e.g. see C9, c3, c5.
- I would prefer links within the text (e.g. Green Campus Program) Be sure to review C-12 as an example.
- This sentence is awkward "The hope of this organization lies in the ideas for projects from a variety of students"
- It does not make sense to use "Old System" with capitals. Instead consider referring to the current system and the proposed system. Be sure to watch your tense in the narrative. Try to stay in present tense whenever possible, unless you are talking about a future action.
- Review W2 - search your document for all instances.
- Review W1 - especially for "it", "came up" "up to". Search your document for all instances.
- Figures 1 and 2 could be improved so it is easier to see the lights.
- Develop a comparison table of the current and proposed system annual costs and electricity usage, life time etc.
- I encourage you to review some other HEIF pages on Appropedia to get some other organization ideas. Your choice of heading levels does not make sense to me. I would be happy to talk to you about this issue.
- Avoid large amounts of white space
- Figure 8 is really a Table. Table captions go on the top. This table should be expanded to compare more than just energy usage. You could have multiple columns as I discussed above.
- Be sure to provide an appropriate reference for the bat ecology information.
- The cost and need of the new light poles is unclear. Please clarify this cost and need put that information in context of the rest of the project. For instance, the information is currently tacked on at the end of your page, but is referenced a few times earlier in the document.
Overall you have a good start. However, your writing needs improvement. Be sure to have friends read your page and take your page to folks at the writing center in the learning commons. You should have a good comparison table that someone could review and take home the main point of your page, without reading all the text. You need to be sure you understand conventions, as you are not using them correctly. Be sure to edit beyond my specific instructions, as you have plenty to work on. I would be happy to talk with you about your page.
Please add comments after here[edit source]
Note to selves[edit source]
| Things to change |
|---|
| 1. apparently our english sucks.... |
| 2. Fix the hours section |
| 3. |
| 4. |
| 5. |
| 6. |
| 7. |
| 8. |
| 9. |
| 10. |
| 11. |
| 12. |
| 13. |
| 14. |
| 15. |