TO: Meagan Rosenberg, Student of ENGL 301
FROM: Jenny Zhang, Student of ENGL 301, JZ
DATE: December 9, 2019
SUBJECT: Peer Review of Formal Report Draft
FORMAL REPORT DRAFT: https://blogs.ubc.ca/engl301-99a-2019wa/2019/11/23/65265/
Thank you for sending me your formal report draft for revision. I have reviewed your Formal Report Draft: Decreasing Needlestick Injuries at Arden Park Dental. Overall your report provides detailed results and useful recommendations.
First Impressions:
Upon first glance, your formal report is well-organized and the amount of detail within your report is impressive. The scope and feasibility of your report is well designed and the aim of your report is realistic. The content of your report overall was relevant throughout and organized.
Introduction Section:
The introduction gives a detailed background on the problem with needlestick injuries at Arden Park Dental. Comprehensive background information is provided with the specific problem. In Method of Research, you question testing feasibility of implementing a solution but you have not introduced your proposed solutions yet.
Data and Conclusion Section:
In the section of Sources of Needlestick Injuries, scalpels should not be included. Your report focuses on decreasing needlestick injuries but from my understanding scalpels are classified as sharps and not needles.
The formal report was easy to read through and there wasn’t much use technical terms. However, one word that stuck out which I believe should have some explanation is cirrhosis. When explaining the effects of Hep B, you noted it could lead to “to liver damage, cirrhosis, liver cancer and death”. To make it easier for readers to understand and a better flow, it can be written as “to liver damage, liver scarring, liver cancer and death”.
From the third paragraph of What Practices Does Arden Park Dental Currently Have in Place for Prevention of Needlestick Injuries? I was a bit confused on what you meant by “ -90% +”. If you meant approximately greater than 90%. Then the correct symbol for approximate is “~”.
Recommendations that are provided are comprehensive. They provide good and workable solutions to your problem.
Organization:
The layout of the draft is effective and follows a logical order. Having each section broken down is effective in framing what you want your reader to focus on.
Style:
The report’s overall tone is professional, clear, and reflects the “you-attitude”. The general flow of the report is smooth, making it easy to follow the writer’s mind.
Visuals/Design:
The layout of your pie graphs was well organized and easy to navigate. The use of different colors helped to distinguish between different results, making it easier to understand. The draft is visually appealing. But, there are some paragraphs throughout your draft where font sizes differ. For example, the paragraph following Method of Research is in a size 13 where previous paragraphs were size 12. Consistent spacing, font size, and layouts make the report look more organized.
Overall, the formal report draft is nicely written, organized and informative to the reader. I hope you may find my recommendations to be helpful when you revise your final draft. Should you have any questions, please email me at jennyzhang_@hotmail.com.
Enclosure: Meagan’s Formal Report
Leave a Reply