To: Ms. Samantha Krieg, ENGL 301 Student
From: Ms. Jeemin Kim, ENGL 301 Student
Peer Review / Formal Report Draft: Improving Understanding of Waste Sorting at UBCO
Thank you for submitting your formal report draft assignment. Your draft was excellently written and extremely informative. I have said this before in the last peer review, but the topic of Improving Understanding of Waste Sorting at UBCO is extremely straightforward yet relevant to the students and faculty of UBC. Please review the following peer review for further improvement before submitting the final version of your formal report.
Content:
- The necessary background information, statement of problem (sorting waste at UBC) and the six proposed initiatives to improve the understanding of waste sorting (education, signage, automatic sorting, participation, and color coding) are clearly explained in the beginning of the draft.
- In addition to a survey, an informational interview and literature review has been included for the feasibility and comparison analysis of the proposed initiatives.
- Technical terms (“Diversion Waste Stream”, “Waste Stream”, “Contamination”, “Waste Diversion”) were organized under working definitions, making it easier for the reader to read, understand and remember the terms before going on to the body of the formal report.
Organization:
- The formatting of the draft is properly done. There are no apparent mistakes concerning headings or subheadings.
- A table of contents was included and the report was correctly paginated, making it easier for the reader to navigate the formal report.
- The figures and tables were appropriately placed throughout the report (A list of tables and figures was also included before the introduction).
Style:
- The tone and language is professional and appropriate for its intended readers.
- The writing is clear and concise, employing a YOU attitude.
Visuals:
- All the visuals, including figures and tables are easy to understand and correctly labeled.
- Each figure or table include an appropriate caption.
- The survey question written on Figure 5, is incomplete (probably because the sentence is too long).
- Maybe you could edit the figure by overwriting the survey question. Although the survey questions are included in the Appendix, having a figure with a incomplete survey question could be deemed as unprofessional.
Grammar and typos:
- There are no apparent grammar errors or mistakes.
- Minor typos were identified with throughout the report, such as “commited” from page 1 and “intitiatives” from pages 11 and 12.
Concluding comments:
Your draft was enjoyable to read and I believe it will be very interesting and informative for its intended readers. Besides editing some minor typos mentioned above, I do not have any further suggestions on improving the draft. Thanks for your hard work and good luck on working on the final version of your report.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns regarding the peer review.
Leave a Reply