Chris Wells' 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.
I feel the audience is mainly the RCEA, and scientists interested in how newer technologies can reduce the emissions of a business.
2. Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout?
The information given to the readers is easy to understand. The table of contents is helpful, and I am able to find what I need because it is all labeled 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.
Headings were used properly. I think all headings are in the right order, but I think there could be more added to the page because it seems to be lacking in some information.
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.
There isn‟t a clear topic sentence for each paragraph but there is a decent leading sentence, which goes straight into the subject of the section. I think that if each section was introduced properly then it would serve as a better way for the readers to understand what is to be expected.
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)
This writing gets the basic point across but I think that it could use more information on the page. If more content was added to this page, I feel it would be complete.
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?
All figures and pictures are easy to understand
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.
They don‟t use reference numbers but instead use links within the text for references. The only figure used is a graph which is hard to understand because there is no specific time periods that are equally apart and could be misleading.
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.
There is no information on the carbon dioxide emissions, but there is a graph plotting the amount of KW/hr used in specific points of time. This graph doesn‟t follow and specific time lapse so it leave room for questioning. I think it would be helpful in the reduced CO2 emissions would be a good thing to show as a summary of the research.
9. Are there any questions you have about the topic that are not addressed? Are the sources of the information clearly presented under “References”?
They both reference many things and present all the information I could need excluding a CO2 emissions graph.
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 only outside links are inside the actual text, but should be moved to a „See Also‟ page so that it may be easier to find more information after reading the article instead of searching the text to find the desired link.
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 pretty short. I‟d expect there to be a fuller explanation of everything presented on the page, even though all the bases were covered.
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?
This page has both the correct banners and the right category headings.
13. List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
Looks like they met with the manager. Has a decent amount of information and graph with the needed information.
14. List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
-CO2 Graph should be added - needs to be longer
-add „See Also‟ section, and „Reference‟ Section
15. Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors)
Overall I think that the page was well developed but it is lacking in information and could use some additions. I‟m sure it will look good after the graph is added to the document, and once the page is lengthened.
KBK7 EDIT[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. The writing appears to be intended for both RCEA and the ENGR 115 class. The writing is correct for the audience intended.
2.Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout? The information is in a clear pattern and easy to navigate through. I would suggest that the first picture on the page be put to the right side so the navigation box is to the left. What were the RCEA predictions for savings? The pictures of the miser and the vending machine should be moved down lower on the page either below the paragraph that talks about them or to the side. Maybe make the graph more colorful and also a bit taller so the y-axis is not as compressed.
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 used are adequate and appropriate. I would not suggest any more unless a new subject needs to be added to the page.
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. Every topic sentence seems to be clear and relevant to the sentences that follow it.
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)In the first paragraph it is stated “There are a number of computers used in the shop as well as in the office building itself.” The amount of computers should be specific because the rest of the appliances are specific in the paragraph.
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 pictures all have captions that relate to the paragraph in reading. All the pictures are relevant to the 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. Most of the figures have numbers in use. There are links to sites but there are possibly missing citations for information. If there is information on the page that was found through research then it needs to have a citation.
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. They have clearly presented the data in a table although the table could be better organized and also a selection of the data could be shown so we could see where the predicted money carbon dioxide emissions came from.
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 do not have any questions to be asked.
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 links are adequate for the uses. There are enough although more could be used if needed.
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 length of the page appears to be adequate and more or less information would be fine either way. (Preferably more just because it gives more insight.)
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 it does.
13. List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)The appropedia page looks very well done with a few organization flaws. From what I can tell there are very little grammatical errors and I did not notice any spelling errors. The paragraphs are written to the appropriate audience with correct language and do not drag on to long.
14. List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)The page looks professional other than the organizational flaws. Bolds and underlines may be appropriate to put into the page to create emphasis on what is more important. After a few corrections then the page should look complete.
15. Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors) You are onto a very good page and if any clarification is needed on my comments please feel free to contact me.
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. I feel the target audience is anyone interested in the workings of Leon’s Car Care and/or energy conservation. I think the technicality of the writing is perfectly appropriate for intended audience.
2. Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout? (Note: Take into consideration that I didn’t create a RCEA page, so your requirements may be different from what I’m expecting, and if so feel free to disregard corresponding comments!) The information is easy to navigate, but perhaps a little bunched together. Particularly in your intro, you could separate the one paragraph into a couple smaller ones, or even subsections labeled ‘Light Fixture Characteristics’ or ‘Old Light Fixtures’ and ‘New Light Fixtures’, etc. On a broad scale the layout is great.
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 would say more headings (see above). Headings work but could be improved – they are slightly on the vague/generic side (ex: Further Considerations). Also, the format for your headers isn’t consistent; was this on purpose? Because of the size of the header, I’m guessing the ‘Project Summary’ is the most important part of your page. Is that right? Some are blue and some are black. I would make all of them the same format but that is just my personal preference.
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. All the sections have topic sentences except the ‘Project Summary’. I think it would greatly benefit from a topic sentence there! I really like the intro, but if there is a topic sentence in there, I think it could be clearer. Maybe something like “Leons Car Care Center recently upgraded to more efficient lighting in order to…”, and then get into specifics about the lighting.
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 objective. I didn’t see any bias, well done.
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 graph is really nice and easy to read. The captions for the pictures are descriptive but also not too much. Maybe find a picture via google images that shows what the old light fixtures looked like? Outside of that, very relevant images already included.
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. Referencing the pictures in the main text would be a nice addition. Sources are not cited except once for statistical info. More should definitely be added!
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. I don’t see any comparisons including predicted money saved anywhere on the page. That would be a great comparison to add, maybe under ‘Results’. Beefing up the ‘Results’ section as a whole would really improve the page, maybe in bullet format, of what conclusions you two drew.
9. Are there any questions you have about the topic that are not addressed? Are the sources of the information clearly presented under “References”? A “References” section is in need. Address Leon’s expenses more in depth.
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? Related sites are linked, you could probably even add a couple more if you felt so inclined but you have a good number to start out at or stay at. The links aren’t too technical and do work with the intended audience. Summary of references in need. Relevance of each site is clear, yes.
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 good size but it could be a little longer. I would go more in depth in sections like ‘Project Summary’ and ‘Results’ and I think your page will be at a perfect 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 to all!
13. List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
Easy navigation.
Very objective writing, and technicality of writing is perfect.
Layout is clear and easy to follow.
Background of both RCEA and Leon’s Car Care are well presented and add a lot to the page. Great intro.
Pictures relevant and improve understanding of page (especially energy miser, awesome idea to picture that).
Conversational yet unbiased tone. Pleasant read.
14. List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
Definitely expand on the ‘Project Summary’ section. Explain the statistics; what do those values mean to Leon’s Car Care?
Graph does a great job of showing energy consumption comparison but it would be nice to see a graphic representation of the money saved/lost.
In the ‘Results’ section, make some conclusions. Reference the values stated earlier and make some analytical as well as quantitative conclusions about money and energy, not just ‘energy was saved’.
In the ‘Further Considerations’, since the header is relatively vague, I would open with a strong topic sentence that pulls in the reader. Similar to a memo, tell the reader why he/she could keep reading this section.
Put the miser photo next to the paragraph that discusses the miser.
Also in the ‘Project Summary’, before the statistics, talk a little bit about the project. I would even separate this section into some subsections.
The ‘Project Summary’ and ‘Results’ should separately be much longer than your intro/background info of Leon’s Car Care. Right now they’re a small percentage of the size. As a reader those two paragraphs are what I’m really interested in and want to be given some facts!
15. Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors)
The two main things I would really focus on are the Results and Project Summary. The rest of it rocks; it starts out great, as a reader I’m hooked. I have all this background info, I’m feeling prepared, and then it’s sort of a dead zone that leaves the reader feeling unsatisfied. You get that nailed and you’re golden.
Analysis, statistical explanation/incorporation, make some conclusions!
Great start.
Tables[edit source]
Hello, I set up your table to be in a wiki format. If you are wondering how that works;
- The "{|" and "|}" designate the beginning and end of the table.
- Rows are designated by "|-".
- Columns are designated by either a "|" or a "!". The ! will make a cell bold, the | will not.
- A table can also be made sortable by adding "class="wikitable sortable"" to the opening "{|". Adding this will also lock your first row.
For example, the following code...
{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
|Hello Normal
!Hello Bold
|-
!Goodbye Bold
|Goodbye Normal
|}
...looks like this:
| Hello Normal | Hello Bold |
|---|---|
| Goodbye Bold | Goodbye Normal |
Nick Meglich's Comments[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. The target audience for this webpage is to RCEA and to public viewers who want to know more about the business. This webpage would be appropriate for anyone who wanted to see what RCEA has done for Leon’s Car Care.
2. Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout? I liked the overall layout. I like that you first describe Leon’s and then you move on to talk about RCEA. You follow that by showing the retrofits and how they have improved the business. You finished with a graph, which was nice.
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. Your headings are used successfully. I would like to see the project summary though in a separate heading. I don’t think that it should be a sub heading of the retrofits.
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. There is sort of a topic sentence but the paragraphs are not long enough to have a real topic sentence. I like the intro paragraph that describes the business. I think that you guys can put in more information in all of the other sections with clear topic sentences.
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. You guys do a good job of telling what was done but I still would like to see more information about what was done like how many lighting fixtures were added.
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? I like your pictures. Your picture of the energy miser was helpful because I had no idea of what those things were. You guys also have a good number of pictures. I think you guys could cut down your graph to make it more effective. I would recommend starting it at 11/14/07 and ending at 12/18/08.
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 used did not have numbers referring to the text but they are labeled. I was able to know what every picture was and what RCEA had done with them. There are no citations but I am not sure that the pictures need citations because I believe that you guys took them yourself. I would ask Dustin if you need to cite these.
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. There is a list in the project summary section about it. The graph shows the energy saved. I do think that you should keep this graph and cut it down but I also think that you should add more graphs about the carbon dioxide emissions or the money saved.
9. Are there any questions you have about the topic that are not addressed? Are the sources of the information clearly presented under “References”? There is no reference section. This should be added and include 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? They have links to the Leon’s Car Care homepage, to austinenergy.com, and to the RCEA homepage. Also they have an internal link that shows what rotary air compressor is. I really liked this because I had no idea what this was until I was able to see it and read about it.
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 too short. There could be more information everywhere. I think that more graphs and or tables should be included. I would like to see more detail about what RCEA did and what their program was designed to do.
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 both the ENGR 115: In Progress and the categories are there.
13. List the strengths of document. I liked the images that you have throughout the document. Especially the one with the energy miser because I had no idea what the thing was or what they do. I also enjoyed that you guys put in the link to the rotary air compressor. That was really helpful to me. The layout was great and in a good order. Pictures were perfect sizes I though too.
14. List areas for improvement. Like I have mentioned before I think the graph would be more effective if you cut it down. I also would prefer if the section titled project summary would be in its own heading.
15. Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors) Good job so far but a lot of work still needs to be done.