By Shujun Peng, Oct 21, 2020
To Ishaan Vora, English 301 Student Writer
From Shujun Peng, English 301 Student Writer
Date: Oct 21, 2020
Subject: Peer Review of Formal Report Proposal: Proposal for a new bus service that runs parallel with the 99 B-Line between Commercial-Broadway Station and the University of British Columbia
Thank you for submitting this proposal for determining the feasibility of increasing a new bus service that runs parallel with the 99-Line between the commercial-broadway station and the University of British Columbia. You have done an outstanding job of providing the background of the study. Following are some suggestions for further improving this proposal:
First impressions :
A major strength of this proposal is the topic. The topic is original and creative, and the proposed solution well-addressed the statement of the problem. Moreover, this proposal draws from personal experience which makes this topic seem more real and valid.
- One overall area of improvement would be to add the intended audience for this proposal. For example, who will be the potential audience of this proposal? The stakeholders of Translink cooperation?
Organization :
This proposal is well organized in a logical and systematic manner. All the headings were bolded and appropriately titled.
Introduction:
The introduction clarifies the problem with the current bus service, bringing in personal experience with the current bus service. In general, the introduction successfully outlines the problem and the proposal’s purpose. See more comments on this below:
- One suggestion is to provide your intended audience with the introduction, or you can state earlier (for example, before the introduction paragraph)
Statement of problem:
The issue was stated clearly in this section, see more comments on this below:
- Instead of using personal experience throughout the proposal, expanding this section by using others’ experience as well, it could strengthen this proposal because the project that is in progress at the moment, concerns about people who take the 99 B-Line.
Proposed solution :
Although the proposed solution does address the problem, the solution is not realistic as it requires a bus line that has no stop from Commercial-Broadway Station to UBC. If the Translink company is the intended audience, it is unlikely for them to act upon this solution.
Scope:
Six areas of inquiry were nicely outlined, see more comments on this below:
- Listing five areas of inquiry is sufficient, the sixth area of inquiry “Who would be responsible to analyze, approve, and allocate resources for such a project?”, the meaning of the “project” is vague. Does this “project” refer to the final project? Or the “new bus line project”？
Methods：
The plan for collecting primary ( questionnaires and surveys) data is clear and easy to follow; the method of secondary data is unclear. By research, does it mean “academic articles?” or “news articles?”
Grammar and Technical Errors:
Please refer to the following in regards to minor grammatical errors:
Introduction :
- Add “for” after “waiting”: “ waiting lines for hours”-> “waiting for lines for hours”
Statement of problem :
- Replace “Been” in your first sentence with “Being”
Scope:
- Delete “ a” before “new”-> “new bus service” is sufficient.
Revisions:
please see the following suggestions when revising the proposal:
- Adding the intended audience for your proposal
- Expanding the proposal by using other people’s experience so that this proposal will be less personal
- Replace the proposed solution with a more strategic one
- Correcting some minor grammar errors
- Specialize some of the vague terms in the proposal
Overall, you have provided an interesting proposal. I hope my suggestion can help you during your revision process. Please feel free to contact me by email if you have any questions or further clarification. Thank you.
Leave a Reply