| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • Buried in cloud files? We can help with Spring cleaning!

    Whether you use Dropbox, Drive, G-Suite, OneDrive, Gmail, Slack, Notion, or all of the above, Dokkio will organize your files for you. Try Dokkio (from the makers of PBworks) for free today.

  • Dokkio (from the makers of PBworks) was #2 on Product Hunt! Check out what people are saying by clicking here.

View
 

HSSE report feedback

Page history last edited by Ashley Nivison 7 years, 1 month ago

-Jared is not your primary audience

-You can add a new section called reviewers

-No table of contents yet, but it’s easy to add that once the project  is finished. Just make sure to add it once the paper is done.

- No image on the front but it’s not required maybe just helpful

-no executive summary but like the table of contents this can be added once this is done.

 

Intro:

-editing concerns: 1. the wording is overdone, strange, and too long.

2. the sentences are very long try to break those up but using transitions.

Revision: what are the negative consequences? List those instead of just the negatives of the registration. This will lead into your alternatives section well.

-cite something about a consequence, if you can in the intro, needs to be persuade the reviewer.

-the criteria is supposed to evaluate the alternatives not the problem itself. Preview the aspects of the problem

-state what you are trying to improve about registration so you will transition into your next sections easier.

 

alternatives:

-specifically what are you doing? It’s hard to tell.

-to make your alternatives more clear, list them. Then break them down 1-2-3. List explain, list explain, etc.

-it’s hard to give feedback when this section doesn’t appear fully developed.

 

background and context:

if Jared is your audience, as previously stated, you don’t need to address him as assigning you this project, because he knows.

-we need to know the background of the topic, not the assignment. The first two sections of this area are not really relevant.

 

Criteria:

-explicitly say what your criteria is and what it is defined by the project assignment.

 

Methods:

Try condensing your information into common topics instead of listing it as “primary” “secondary.” It’s a more effective way to present your findings. It will help the reader find specific information easy and fast.

 

-is the integration section the recommendation? It seems like you don’t

-no evaluation section

 

-the results section is too image dominated. You don’t need to have a graph per every question on the survey. Try summarizing these results in a few sentences. It’ll be easier to read these conclusions instead of having to look at each graph.

comparable registration applications:
what are we getting from this section?

Summarize what you’ve found but actually compare it to WSU. Pro’s and con’s, best practices, findings from?, what does this offer to WSU?

-consider sub headings in the prototype section

-you need a second dimension of results, maybe about scheduling system practices at other universities. Credible sources? Maybe not just listing what WSU students say

-some of your conclusions seem like the most obvious answer. You can’t just say this is the problem, no one likes a problem, fix it.

 

http://fstudysuperstructure.pbworks.com/w/page/94782686/FrontPage

 

Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.