Peer Review for Brian Wang: Formal Report Draft

Peer Review for: Brian Wang, ENGL 301 student

Reviewer: Andree Coschizza, ENGL 301 student

Date: December 10, 2019

Subject: Peer Review on Formal Report Draft: Water Use Characterization during Crop Processing at UBC Farm


Dear Brian,

Thank you for the opportunity to read your report on water use characterization during crop processing at UBC Farm. This report was very well written and included useful recommendations for the UBC Farm. While there are some minor details that could be improved upon, this was overall a very good report draft. Below, I have outlined some specific suggestions for each of your headings, and some general notes about layout and tone.


Title Page

The first page effectively introduces the paper in a compelling and aesthetic manner. There is lots of information, good use of colour, and clearly defines the audience.


A: A very clean introduction that defines the purpose of this report and the importance of water regulation for sustainable water usage.

B: Defining a “living laboratory” is an effective tactic to allow the audience to see platforms already in place for research. See [Content] for notes on sentence structure.

C: This is a good introduction to ongoing projects, having infrastructure already is a good place to start making recommendations. Great idea to include a link to background information instead of explaining it all in the paragraph.

D: Paragraphs clearly state problems that must be solved. The concept of making a solution that applies to both researchers and farmers makes this a compelling report. A few suggestions:

  • Reorganizing this section will make it easier to comprehend the challenges thus far. For example, it seems to introduce two NEW problems in the second paragraph, as opposed to explaining the overarching problem (water characterization) in two parts. Introducing the problem of water characterization as a two-part problem at the beginning will reduce confusion.
  • See [Content] for notes on sentence structure

E: A good report scope and an impressive amount of data gathered.

First Problem: What is the Water Used for?

The concept of restating and expanding on the problem at the beginning is a good way to reintroduce the first problem stated earlier. This section provides lots of information on how water is used, and the photos provide a good reference. Some suggestions:


  • Elaborating more on how your experience at the harvesting days will add first hand information and credibility to the report. In addition, this would provide more context as it was stated in the “restating of the problem” that volunteering took place, however most of the information seems to be based off the interview.
  • In this section, expanding on how the current monitoring system is insufficient will be useful to the reader to fully grasp the problem.

Second Problem: Variability in the Crop Washing Process’

The definitions of variability are helpful in this section as opposed to on a working definitions list. The definitions add to the statement of your problem and make it clearer for the audience, as opposed to having to look it up in an index when it’s such a large aspect of the problem. Additionally, the diagram of the Hudson valve is useful for the audience to picture how such a device might be beneficial. A few suggestions for this section:

  • Explaining precisely the problem with using hose 3 to fill up all the tanks will be beneficial for the reader’s understanding. For example, adding a sentence stating that using one hose does not specify water consumption.
  • Clarifying whether the Hudson valve problem is a systematic variability (due to a different valve being used) or a human variability (Mr. Delumpa using a different valve) will nicely refer to first paragraph.

Proposed Solution

A: The concept of zone division and expansion is a well thought out solution to the problem. The photo of the map is extremely effective as it lets the audience understand exactly how zones should be implemented. However:

  • While zone division is clearly defined, clarifying the concept of zone expansion (perhaps in relation to how large the zones already are) will strengthen the significance of your solution
  • It’s mentioned that an additional seven flow sensors will be installed, mentioning how this number was obtained and what these nodes will measure can add more detail for the reader

B: This section is well presented, and the photo of Hudson valves already installed is very impressive.


A: This summarizes problems and solutions very well.

B: It is good that you have mentioned future challenges that can not be solved in the scope of the paper. However, staying away from proposing ideas that are not entirely feasible will enhance the quality of the report. Perhaps suggesting a spreadsheet for recording any malfunctions/human variability, is a more feasible solution.



Overall, the report content is structured nicely and answers all the questions proposed in the scope. There is a good flow to the report, and all aspects are defined/introduced in a systematic way. Minor changes can be made to clarify some sentences, specific ones are mentioned below:

  • Introduction B, sentence 3: sentence fragment
  • Introduction D, par. 3, sentence 5: sentence seems to be missing a word
  • Second Problem B. par 2, sentence 3: sentence seems to be missing a word


The information is structured well in the report with clear segues into each section. Effort has been made to avoid big chunks of text and sub-headings clearly divide sections into understandable parts. Only one suggestion:

  • The proposed solution is entitled zone division and expansion but seems to cover two problems (the first being “zone division and expansion”, and the second being installation of Hudson valves). Entitling this more generally will encompass both problems.


The report is written with a clear audience (Prof. Mark Johnson) and with a “YOU” attitude in mind. The tone of the report is positive through-out and suggests effective improvements to an emerging project. Just one remark:

  • Referring to Matt Delumpa consistently as “Matt” or “Mr. Delumpa” will be clearer for the reader. He is referred to as Mr. Delumpa until pg. 9, where after he is referred to as Matt.


The overall design of this report is very appealing. The cover page is especially engaging and has good use of colour. All photos are clear, labeled, and integrated into the text of the report.


All in all, it was a pleasure to read your report draft. The whole paper was very interesting and provided a great deal of information, as well as effect solutions. While minor changes can be made, this is a strong report and a good first draft. Hopefully my suggestions will be helpful for you during the editing process! If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to reach out.


Link to Brian Wang’s Formal Report Draft:


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *