Konstantin’s Peer Review of Leif’s Proposal

To Leif Jack

From : Konstantin Mestnikov

Peer Review: Proposal for Comparing the Feasibility of Heightening Kelowna’s Mission Creek Dikes versus Installing Water Pumps

Thank you for completing the project proposal assignment for lesson 2:1; it is an engaging and interesting read. Please see the review of the proposal below with suggested improvements.

First Impressions:

The proposal has a clear structure and is well-organized. The assignment requirements are mostly fulfilled, however some research scope and objectives, such as assessing the likelihood of droughts and floodings, may not be feasible to reach. The problem statement is convincing, but the proposed solution is not clear enough on how to address the problem of more frequent droughts.

Organization:

• The introduction is concise and appropriate for the problem statement about Kelowna’s climate.
• Each section of the proposal strictly corresponds to its heading giving the document a clear structure.

Content:

• The document is constructed according to the assignment instructions and contains:
  • Audience description
  • Statement of Problem
  • Proposed Solution
  • Scope and Methods
  • Qualification
  • Conclusion

Problem statement:

• The statement is thorough and discusses with sufficient detail its societal and financial implications and is overall convincing.
• Since the proposed solution may not solve the problem of droughts (see below), it is possible to focus only on one of droughts or over-irrigation problems.

Proposed solution:

• Overall, the potential solutions for managing high water levels is convincing.
• The solution may be rephrased to be more persuasive statement of an action plan, rather than comparison of possible solutions.
• It is unclear how the proposed solution addresses the problem of droughts, as it may be the case that Mission Creek’s water cannot be used during dry seasons as the water levels of the creek itself may be low during these times.

Scope and methods:

• Including assessment of likelihood of flooding and drought in Kelowna may require substantial research and technical qualification.
• It is possible to limit the scope to only assessing solutions to the possible problems, since the precedents causing the problem (the heatwave and flooding) already happened and are not merely a possibility.

Grammar/Typos:

• Overall, the grammar is sound. Minor changes include corrections, such as addition of commas (“June-August 2021, for example, saw record-breaking heat…”) and subject-verb agreement (“Unexpected, dangerously hot and dry temperatures, and Mission Creek potentially overflowing create…”).

Concluding comments:

The document is clear, easy to read and well organized. With the following corrections and improvements, it can be a convincing and engaging proposal:

• Perhaps, limit the problem statement to one of the problems of droughts or high water levels.
• Rephrase the solution to make it more persuasive and add more explanation relating to the drought problem.
• Limit the scope to assessing the solutions and exclude research on flood and drought likelihood for feasibility reasons.

Please feel free to ask any questions, reviewing the proposal has been a pleasant and engaging process, thank you.

https://blogs.ubc.ca/engl30198a2022s12/2022/06/22/leif-jack-formal-report-proposal/