Revised Peer Review of Definition “Direct Air Capture”

To: Han Li

From: Carol Li

Peer Review / Term: Direct Air Capture

 

Thank you for posting the definition of “Direct Air Capture”, which is a pleasant read.  Please see the review of the document below with suggestions for improvements.

 

First Impression:

This document is well written, clearly labeled, and organized logistically. Besides, the document is also an impressive document that is easy to understand and read for non-technical readers.

 

Organization:

• The assignment introduction is coherent, very specific, and detailed.
• Using bold headings improves the organization, which will be easier to read quickly.
• The title for Figure 1 is direct and well-cited. Since Figure 1 describes how DAC works, the paper would be more coherent if there’s a sub-part “How does it work?”.
• The paper answers most of the questions a reader would have regarding the term.
• If a summary paragraph can be added at the end of the article, the whole paper will be more complete and give the reader a complete understanding of the definition.

 

Expression:

• In general, the expression is concise with a professional tone, especially in the sentence definition part.
• The use of parenthetical definitions throughout the main document is excellent and assists with understanding the definitions.
• However, some words seem unnecessary. For example, “Direct air capture technologies (DAC) extract CO2 directly from the atmosphere using clean energy and handle the extracted CO2 in clean ways without releasing CO2.” Since DAC “extract CO2”, the phrase “without releasing CO2” seems not necessary.

 

Content:

• The document meets most of the assignment requirements, including:
• A detailed introduction
• Three forms of definition
• The use of a visual
• A list of works cited
• But four types of expansion are required. So another expansion such as “how does the technology develop in Canada” may be a good choice.

 

Visuals:

• The visual is correctly labeled and vividly shows the workflow of DAC. The visual is too small to read. Adding another visual such as what does the DAC technology look like in practice is needed, which makes the document more attractive and logical.

 

Works Cited List:

• The works cited list is great, but the phrases like “Retrieved on” and “from” should be deleted as required in the MLA style. For example:
• Author’s Last name, First name. “Title of the Article or Individual Page.” Title of the Website, Name of the Publisher, date of publication in day month year format, URL.

 

Grammar and Typos:

• The paper looks good overall but some small errors exist.
• One example is: “And after this assignment, it is easy to distinguish between three definitions and consider which is more appropriate for the viewer in various situations.”
• Please note that “viewer” is singular and should be correct as “viewers”.
• The other example is “This assignment is to write three types of definitions of a relatively complex term， which are parenthetical, sentence, and expand,”
• There is an unnecessary space before the “which” in the assignment introduction part.

 

Concluding Comments:

Your definition is interesting to read, informative, and nicely organized, thank you. With the following edits, and a good proofread for small errors, this will be a useful and excellent document:

• Including a proper conclusion will be helpful
• Adjust the use of phrases and reduce misunderstandings
• Add one more type of the expand definition
• Adjust the picture to the right position
• Double-checking Works Cited list
• Self-editing for typos and grammatical expression is needed (see the note above)

 

Thank you and please feel free to ask any questions, it has been a pleasure reviewing this work. Enjoy.

 

Best,

Carol

https://blogs.ubc.ca/engl301-99c-2021wc/2022/01/29/three-definitions-on-direct-air-capture/