Peer Review for Technical Report Writing

Peer Review for Matthew, Hui Min and Wei Tin's Technical Report.

In the benefit section, the benefits of the solution are clearly presented. The group has shown their researches and also facts on the benefits. In text citations are clearly cited as well. On top of that, there are well illustrated data and pictures, information in general, for readers to understand the technical parts of the proposal. In the evaluation section, potential challenges are well explained. The group has listed 3 different types of potential challenges and has explained each in detailed based on their research studies. Under this section, they have also come up with a solution to solve these potential challenges that they have listed down. In the research methods section, the method of research done by the group was clearly explained. There was a clear explanation on why their team has finalize the plan on retrofitting the commercial buildings in industrial park and also how the team suggested the effective placement of the solar louvers to reduce the internal heat gains as well as to maximize the absorption of sunlight.  In the concluding statement, the group has included a final summary and they also reinforce on the proposal with their reasons once again. Besides that, they also conclude with a comparison of both their product and a traditional solar panel to reinforce on their point of having the proposal. In the reference section, majority of their references are credible sources from the local government, BCA authority. The citations are all relevant. The in-text citation does not have APA style. The format of their references are wrong as well. In the visuals/graphics/charts section, all of them are used to present key concepts of the proposal and data. The group does not have irrelevant sources and all of their data presented are relevant to what they proposed. In the appendix section, their appendix are correctly formatted and titled, but in their body paragraph when stating the appendix, it was not in the correct format. To sum up, overall, I think the team did a good job in terms of language use, content and organization. 

Reviewed by Rebecca. (15 November 2016)