Peer Review of Jasmin
To: Jasmin Senghera
From: Hannah Becker
Date: January 17th, 2019
Subject: Peer review of ‘pyranometer’ definition
I have reviewed your assignment giving three definitions for the term ‘pyranometer.’ Overall, I think that you have done a great job compiling the definitions in a concise and informative manner. As a non-scientist I was able to understand what a pyranometer is by the time I had read your draft. You chose diverse ways of describing the term which definitely added to the ease of my overall understanding. I have only a few suggestions:
Sentence: Though it can only be one sentence, I think it would be helpful to expand the sentence a little further to help a non-scientific mind interpret the terms that you are using, even though they may seem basic to you. Specifically, I did not understand what ‘incident solar radiation’ meant, which made it slightly difficult to understand the sentence as a whole.
Operating Principle: Since you mention that there is a second type of pyranometer, the ‘chip-type,’ I was left curious as to what the difference is. Perhaps a one sentence description of this type in the paragraph would be helpful in deepening the reader’s understanding by having something to compare and contrast to.
Overall, you did an excellent job and I can’t think of any more ways that it could be improved. It was interesting to learn about the pyranometer from you for the first time. I hope that my suggestions are helpful, feel free to contact me with any questions or to discuss.
Leave a Reply