Dale’s Review of Harvey’s Proposal

Dale’s Review of Harvey’s Proposal

To: Harvey Dhaliwal
From: Dale Miller
Date: June 29, 2022
Subject: Peer Review of Proposal for Improving Check-in Procedures at North Delta Recreation Centre

Thanks for submitting your research proposal for lesson 2.1, I found it interesting to read and relatable to my experiences at other recreation centres. Please see below for some suggestions on improvements.

First Impressions:

This is a well-organized and explained research proposal that touches on all aspects of the assignment. The subject is relevant and something of interest to anyone who visits recreation centres, and also doable within the assignment’s scope.

Organization:

• A good introduction and a clear statement of problems gives the reader a clear understanding of the conditions and procedures at the North Delta Recreation Centre.
• It is organized into well labelled and logical sections that clearly guide the reader through the proposal.
• It does, however, feel like this proposal combines two separate issues into one paper (both lineup organization and wristband use), which gets a little confusing in the proposed solutions, scope and methods sections. Perhaps consider either limiting the paper to one of these problems or splitting each section into pieces that address each of the problems separately.

Expression:

• The expression in the proposal is clear, the tone is professional, and it is well written overall.
• As mentioned in the organization section, the proposal would be stronger if it were more clear which problem each paragraph and sentence is addressing. For example, the proposed solutions section only features one paragraph, and it is unclear whether the “automated check-in station” is part of the “computerized visitor attendance system” or something else entirely.
• Making stronger connections between the scope and methods section will also add more weight to the proposal. Presumably the director of parks and recreation will be contacted to ask about the facility’s preparedness for eliminating wristbands, but this could be made more explicit.

Content:

The document is complete according to the assignment requirements and it includes the following sections:

• Introduction
• Statement of Problems
• Audience
• Proposed Solutions
• Scope
• Methods
• My Qualifications
• Conclusion

One suggestion for the proposal’s content would be to consider addressing the issue from the perspective of the recreation centre (perhaps in terms of budget and feasibility), which could make the paper feel more complete and well rounded. For example, the proposed solutions of an “automated check-in station” and “computerized visitor attendance system” sound good but it is not clear if they might be practical for the recreation centre to implement. The proposal does mention that it will interview the director of parks and recreation on limitations, but making sure that the research and final proposal focusses on finding a practical and achievable solution could make for a much more effective argument.

Conclusion:

This is a nicely written and thought-out research proposal and I look forward to reading your paper. As mentioned, the following suggestions could make this proposal even better.

• Limit the paper to one problem or split each section into pieces that address each of the problems separately.
• Make it more clear which problem each paragraph and sentence is addressing.
• Make stronger connections between the questions listed in the scope and the suggested methods.
• Consider expanding the research to focus on including practical aspects to the proposed solutions.

Thank you, and please don’t hesitate to ask any questions.

Link to Harvey’s proposal here.