Peer Review of Formal Report Draft – Feasibility Analysis of the Implementation of improving environmental practices at Flagship Dental to reduce its carbon footprint.

To: Trisha Bharma 

From: Dylan Flach

Peer Review / Formal Report Draft

 

Thank you for submitting the ‘Formal Report Draft’ assignment for Lesson 3.3. The document was informative and interesting to read. Please see the review below for comments and suggestions for improvement.

 

First Impressions:

The document is well-organized and concise, providing a significant issue that would benefit from amendment as per the solution suggests.

 

Organization:

• The bolded/underlined subtitles and well-spaced paragraphs allow the reader to easily follow the document.
• The document is organized correctly as per the assignment’s instructions, containing an introduction with a purpose statement, methods, scope, data section with at least two figures, and conclusion with recommendations. 
• The paper could benefit from uniformity in the style of subtitles, ensuring all are following the same pattern of bolding/underlining. 

 

Introduction:

• The introduction paragraph concisely summarizes the important details regarding the current waste practices in dentistry, providing a concrete image of the environmental impact of this industry. 
• The introduction could have benefitted from a parenthetical definition of the term ‘autoclave’ as it is used throughout the paper but a lament reader may not recognize this term.

Statement of Purpose:

• The purpose could benefit from some amendments to make the statement more clear and strong. The first paragraph: “Although, Flagship Dental has some environmental practices in play, there is a lack of accountability to implement environmental practices within the sterilization program and “green” PPE to further reduce the carbon footprint. The major implication of this problem is adding to the existing global warming from poor environmental practices, especially when environmental alternatives exist. We all must be accountable at home and work in trying to minimize our carbon footprint.” (70 words) could be more clear and concise if written as: “The current environmental practices at Flagship Dental are inadequate to reduce the establishment’s carbon footprint. The sterilization program lacks accountability for implementing improved environmental practices and the use of environmentally-friendly PPE. Flagship Dental’s evasion of green alternatives results in significant consequences for the current climate crisis.” (46 words)
• The proposed solution is well-stated and suitable for the report’s purpose. 
• The example at the end of the purpose is a strong idea but would be better suited for the introduction section to enhance accuracy. 

Scope and Methods:

• The methods section includes well-chosen primary and secondary sources that appear to be beneficial for the purpose of the report. 
• The second paragraph could be rewritten to improve clarity. For instance, there are some word choices that do not provide sufficient details, including “other workers” and “lower mainland”. This paragraph could be improved by specifying what other employees will be interviewed (i.e. dental hygienists, secretaries, etc). Further, though the paper is written for a Vancouver dental office, it is still important to clarify the reach of the online survey. This sentence would benefit from specifying which dental offices the online survey aims to study, and whether these will be a representative sample of the Lower Mainland, or rather Metro Vancouver (a smaller geographical area that will be much easier to study). 
• It is important to avoid the use of personal pronouns in the formal report, such as “my primary sources” which could be rewritten as “the primary sources of this report”. 
• The first sentence of the scope clearly indicates the purpose. However, there could be a linking sentence to explain to the reader what the following numbered points are pertaining to. 
• Overall, the scope covers many appropriate aspects of the investigation. 
• The first point in the scope could be more straightforward. The term PPE does not require parentheses following it as it has been defined in the introduction. As such, “What some green alternatives to PPE (gloves and masks), the current sterilization program, plastic barriers, disposable cups, and saliva ejectors and what the costs associated with them?” could be rewritten as “What are the available green alternatives to PPE, single-use plastics, and the current sterilization program? Is switching to these alternatives economically feasible?”
• The second point uses parentheses after PPE which is redundant as PPE has been defined. 
• The fourth point does not require the question “Is there enough demand for green alternatives in the field of dentistry?” as this was already stated in the second point. 
• The fifth point repeats the statement about cost as in the first point, so it is suggested to either leave this in the first point or allow this to be the key focus of only the fifth point. Further, the sixth point can be combined with the other statements of cost to improve conciseness. 

Data Section

• The figure titles are appropriate and properly formatted. 
• Part B does a good job of explaining the reasoning behind the necessary changes in data collection and describes the limitations of these changes. 
• There are brief but comprehensive descriptions of the results of the survey questions. 
• The readability of the sentence “Dental offices have overhead costs that must be maintained while abiding by the CDSBC guidelines for sterilization, plastic sterilization pouches, barriers and one time use saliva ejectors keep the costs low” could be improved by changing it to “Dental offices must maintain their overhead costs while abiding by the CDSBC guidelines for sterilization; the current use of barriers, plastic sterilization pouches, and single-use saliva ejectors allow costs to remain low”. 
• The advantages and disadvantages of implementing environmentally-friendly practices are well detailed. However, as there is only one advantage stated, the use of “one” would be a more appropriate word choice then “some” at the start of the sentence. 
• There is a suitable and well-thought out suggestion for an environmentally-friendly alternative to certain dentistry items following Figure 2.1. However, this sentence would be more appropriate in the recommendations section of the paper.   
• Part D clearly explains specific green alternatives to a variety of dental items. However, these suggestions may be better placed within the recommendations section of the report, and the data section left for a description of the data itself. 

Conclusion:

• The conclusion adequately summarizes the proposal. However, it cannot be evaluated as a whole since it is not yet complete. 
• The document ends abruptly with a suggestion instead of a proper concluding sentence. Adding this would bring finality to the paper. 
• The suggestions are stated in a concise yet descriptive manner. However, the flow of this section could be improved by including more transition words, as the current layout is more of a list style. 

Grammar/Typos:

• The document is well-written and is free from any significant grammar errors or typos.
• The title page should have proper capitalization: “Feasibility Analysis of the Implementation of Improving Environmental Practices at Flagship Dental to Reduce its Carbon Footprint”. 
• In the introduction, change “… taking an action to improve their environmental practices and reduce the carbon footprint” to “…taking actions to improve their environmental practices and reduce their carbon footprint”. 
• In the introduction, the sentence: “Single use materials such as disposable cups, bibs, and saliva ejectors and plastic barriers to cover things that cannot be sterilized is a widespread practice in dentistry” could be improved for readability. The sentence would be better formatted as “Single use materials, such as disposable cups, bibs, saliva ejectors, and plastic barriers (to protect items that cannot be sterilized) are used frequently in dentistry.
• The third point of the scope has an extra space on one side of the forward slash, and a missing hyphen in “non-green”. However, instead of fixing these typos, the sentence would benefit more from slight rewording from “Can green alternatives meet the day-to-day demand of the dental office as well as traditional plastic/ non green version?” to “Can green alternatives meet the day-to-day demand of the dental office as sufficiently as traditional methods?” 
• The title of part A of the data section has an improper capitalization of “data summary”. Further, there is an “a” missing before “recycling program”. There is also a typing error, with the “à” should be a period. 
• In part C of the data section, the sentence: “Some barriers to making the switch include cost of the procuring the “green” alternatives, “green” sterilization practices unable to keep up with the demand of the office” has a few grammatical errors. It could be rewritten as “Some barriers to making this switch include the cost of procuring “green” alternatives, as well as concern that “green” sterilization practices will be unable to keep up with the demand of the office”. 
• The title for Figure 2.1 is missing a capitalization on sterilization. 
• The first sentence after figure 2.2 is missing the word “to” before “‘green’ alternatives”. 
• Part D of the data section should be written as “… comparing ‘green alternatives to traditional dental equipment…” instead of using “vs”. 

 

Overall document:

Content

1. 1. Which specific part(s) of the draft’s content did you find most informative? I found that the introduction section was very informative in its comprehensive analysis of the current environmental practices in the dental industry. The recommendations section was also quite informative, and once complete it appears that it will offer unique and thought-provoking suggestions for improvement. 
   2. Which specific part(s) of the draft’s content would you recommend for revision, and what revision would you recommend? The scope section could have been shortened as there was some repetition in the areas that the paper plans to reach. Revisions are recommended above. 
   3. Has the report identified and analyzed a problem or an area for improvement, and has it recommended workable and affordable solutions? The document has done an acceptable job in its identification of the issue of non-environmentally friendly practices in the dental industry. However, the incompleteness of this draft results in the solutions not being entirely comprehensive. The solutions that are stated take into account the positions of the employees and how to improve the applicability of green alternatives. A stronger focus on economics could be included. 
   4. Do any important technical terms in the report need definition for the intended audience? The term “autoclave” was not adequately defined. However, PPE, and CDSBC were described at the start. 
   5. Is the report logically laid out with problems and solutions discussed in an organised progression? Yes the report is organized in a manner that allows the reader to follow the problem at hand and the subsequent solutions. 

 

Organization

1. 1. Is the organization of the draft clear and effective at all points? The draft has some areas where clarity could be improved, especially in the placement of some paragraphs. Suggestions to improve organization are above, pertaining to their specific section of the paper. 
   2. Is the draft correctly paginated? The draft does not include page numbers. 
   3. Are there effective heads and sub headings: do the headings and sub-headings of the report reveal content clearly? Yes, the headings and subheadings enhance clarity and organization of the paper’s content. The subheadings abide by those listed in the textbook and that of the formal report outline. 
   4. Ensure your peer has avoided writing with BIG chunks of text. The paper offers many subheadings to avoid sections being too large. 
   5. Are the parts of the report clearly connected to one another at all points? The introduction and data section have adequate transition words and sentences for good flow and readability. However, the conclusion is quite choppy and list-like and requires amendment. It is expected that when completed, the conclusion will be more suitable.

Style

1. 1. Is the tone objective rather than subjective? The paper maintains an objective tone and avoids the use of a subjective tone of personal bias. 
   2. Is the tone positive through-out? Yes, the draft generally avoids the use of negative connotations. 
   3. Does tone reflect the you-attitude toward the identified reader[s] emphasized in Technical Communication? The tone of the paper reflects the You Attitude in emphasizing information that will benefit the targeted audience in its applicability to the dental office at hand. The paper avoids any judgement or negative connotations pertaining to the current practices of the dental office as a means of protecting the reader’s ego. The author maintains a professional attitude and relays the information in a manner that is reader-friendly and appropriate in the context of the report. 
   4. Are there any individual paragraphs or passages where a reader has difficulty following the writer’s thinking? Identify as specifically as possible. Suggestions to enhance readability are in their specific sections above. 

Design

1. 1. Are graphics well-designed, correctly and effectively labeled, and effectively integrated into the print content of the report? The figures are properly labelled and placed in the appropriate order in the report. The size of the graphics could be altered for uniformity. 
   2. Is the report draft reader-friendly and visually appealing? Could any parts of the report’s design (spacing, font size, layout) use improvement? Overall, the report is visually appealing and easy to follow. The section with specific alternatives for dental equipment could be improved by either making the font the same as the rest of the paper, or by reinforcing the table format and adding a table title above. The paper could be improved by using the same font colour and bolding/underlining styles throughout the titles and subtitles. 

Conclusion: 

The document is very informative and concise, with considerate recommendations to an explicitly stated issue. The document would be exceptional and have great use with the following modifications:

 

• Ensuring proper capitalization in titles and subtitles.
• A more clear definition of terms such as “autoclave”. 
• Uniform formatting throughout. 
• Thorough proofreading to avoid grammatical errors and typos, while improving the readability of sentences. 
• Ensuring the scope is concise and not repetitive. 
• Adjusting the layout to ensure paragraphs are suited to their designated section. 
• The addition of appropriate transitions to avoid list-like paragraphs. 

 

It has been a pleasure reviewing this document. Please feel free to inquire at dylanflach@gmail.com with any questions. Thank you.