From: Corbyn Kwan, ENGL 301 Student
To: Aman Johal ENGL 301 Student
Date: April 5, 2023
Subject: Peer Review of Aman Johal’s Formal Report Draft: “Feasibility Analysis of Increasing the Student Transportation Methods on UBC Vancouver Campus”
Dear Aman,
Thank you so much for the formal report draft. It was an enjoyable and interesting read. Please read my peer review of the report below:
Table of Contents
- The tabular spacing for the subsection between each section makes it very easy to read.
- The font size is a bit too small to read. Perhaps increasing the font size would help. Especially for the sub-sub sections i.e. “Current Sentiment Towards Micormobility Services”
- Typo for “Current Sentiment Towards Micormobility Services”
- The word for “E-Scooters” and “e-Scooters” is different. Sticking to one would make it consistent and easier to read.
- Data section is beautifully formatted. Analysis of the different data sources in each section makes it easier to anticipate and read.
- Missing “References” section
Introduction
- For “detrimental academic effects on classmates as well”. An explanation on why would give more context.
- For “Micromobility refers to small lightweight vehicles.”. This should be a parenthesis definition for easier reading and flow.
- “bikesharing” isn’t a word. Replace with bike-sharing
- “Overview of Current Campus Transportation Methods” section does a great job of explaining HOPR, and what a ride-sharing app needs.
- For the “Purpose of report” section, “quicker, more effective, and more efficient” could be more concise
- “eBike” should be “e-Bike” to be consistent with “e-Scooter”
- The “Limitations of the study” section is very transparent. A nice addition.
- The scope of the report is very clear and concise. I love the numbering format.
Data Section
- Some background in the number of participants, numbers of questions, etc
- It would be preferable if Figure name is put under each image individually.
- Typo with “Reponses” should be “Responses”
- Survey results and explanations of these results were concise and well-written.
- “e-Scooters are introduced in a setting in which e-bikes have already been established, e-bike ridership only decreases 10.2%” – This is a superb line because it’s directly related to the report proposal.
- Research Against E-Scooters section is very transparent. A nice addition.
- For the “Research for the Support of E-Scooters” and “Research Against E-Scooters” sections, points don’t mention much of how UBC is directly relates to this, which is the main topic of this report. Instead, if talks about under university campuses.
Conclusion
- A solid conclusion. Outlining the positives and negatives of e-Scooters in UBC.
- Lots of key points made here that were shown throughout the report (HOPR, price, poor user experience, environmental concerns, cluttering)
Recommendations
- Realistic feasibility concerns of e-Scooters not completely replacing HOPR
- Some solutions to combat concerns would be nice. For example, to avoid cluttering, park the e-Scooters in places that don’t have a lot of traffic.
- Recommendation points are very clear and concise
Overall final impressions
Thank you for writing a stellar report draft. The report’s formatting was excellent and very easy to read, and the secondary research used to support the points was very convincing. Although, there were some errors with typos, as this is a draft I hope it will be resolved in the final draft which I look forward to reading.
It was a pleasure reading your work. Feel free to contact me if you have any inquiries.
Sincerely,
Corbyn
Leave a Reply