To: Garret Yeo
From: Benson Lin
Peer Review / Formal Report Proposal for Improving Northbound and Southbound Transportation Access in Burnaby
Thank you for submitting the formal report proposal for lesson 2:1; this is an informative read. Please see the review of the document below with suggestions for improvements.
First Impressions:
The report proposal for improving northbound and southbound transportation access is well-organized, and introduces the problem and solution in a clear and concise way. However, there is a formatting mistake within the introductory paragraph. Also, the lack of an outlined audience to the report makes the choice of surveying BCIT students and staff commuters unclear to the reader. Clarifications as to why the primary sources are from BCIT students and staff commuters in earlier sections could improve the proposal, please see below.
Organization:
- Each section of the proposal has a heading and the information within the headings are well organized and the content within is appropriate
- The areas of inquiry within the Scope section of the proposal are numbered and indented which make them readable.
- Overall the proposal is well organized and each section is clear and concise.
Expression:
- Overall, the expression is clear and the tone is professional: clear, to the point and concise.
Introduction:
The introduction provides context into the transportation options within Metro Vancouver and details a reason for making improvements to the transportation system to improve the movement of people around the city. The introduction successfully provides background information for a solid understanding of the problem within the next section.
Statement of Problem:
The statement of problem provides helpful statistics that provide urgency for the investigation into improving services that connect the Eastbound and Westbound Skytrain lines and the regions in between. However, it would help to expand the reasoning for including health and safety on public transit and the use of copper fixtures mentioned in the Methods section.
Proposed Solution:
The proposed solution is clear and suggests the creation of a new Skytrain line between two different Skytrain line that connects North and South Burnaby.
Scope:
The areas of inquiry are suitable for determining the feasibility of increasing transportation capability. However, if copper fixtures and health and safety will be accounted for within the methods then they should be added to this section as well.
Methods:
The primary (surveys) and secondary data sources (Metro Vancouver and Translink long-term transportation plans) are reasonable and should answer the areas of inquiry detailed in the Scope section.
Grammar and Technical Errors:
General:
- The addition of the audience that the proposal is being written for.
Introduction:
- There is a formatting error within the introductory paragraph that creates a large area of white space in the middle of a sentence.
Scope:
- Adding areas of inquiry regarding health and safety and the implementation of copper fixtures on public transportation.
Methods:
- Adding justification on to why BCIT students and staff commuters are the survey population because it is unclear why they would help with determining the feasibility of increasing transportation capability.
Revisions:
Your proposal is informative, and well organized, thank you. With the following edits, and a good proofread for small errors, this document can be improved upon:
- Addition of the intended audience.
- Clarification of why BCIT students and staff commuters are the primary sources.
- Including copper fixtures as an area of inquiry in the Scope section.
- Self-editing for typos, formatting, and grammatical expression is needed (see note above)
Thank you and please feel free to ask any questions, it has been a pleasure reviewing your work.
Leave a Reply