Submitted by Nathaniel on Sun, 04/26/2009 - 15:07.
With respect to the core of the assignment, the white paper is solid: you have outlined four solutions in an unbiased fashion with some attempt to compare them across a common rubric. There is, however, room for improvement in both content and design.
As you revise the white paper, pay attention to the following elements:
Font and format consistency. Not all of the sections use the same typeface for the body text. Also, in some spots the alignments are not consistent. This happens a lot on first drafts when various sections are combined for the first time, and it should be easy to remedy.
Create more consistent headers. I think it works well to have sub sections that cover the same issues/concerns. However, the headers themselves need to be consistent in order to signal this. For instance, you have "Geographical Limitations" vs. "Geological Considerations," and "System Installation" vs. "System Configuration." Decide, as a group, which headers to use, and then use them consistently to guide the reader more effectively.
Balance your sections. The sections are not balanced in terms of depth and number of subsections. For instance, the "Closed Loop Geothermal System" section is far more robust than the rest (and should be the model for them as well). Each section, each technology, should receive the same care and attention - this is an important way to avoid the appearance of bias. It is also necessary to allow the reader to make an informed decision. Each technology should have the same number of sections and the same talking points (installation, limitations, economic efficiency, etc.).
Provide citations for sources. Only one section contains footnotes. This is a big problem that needs to be addressed; otherwise, plagiarism becomes a real concern.
Provide an executive summary, an introduction, and a conclusion. The executive summary (which is distinct from the introduction) summarizes the entire white paper. An introduction needs to address not just heat pumps but the problem they solve. The introduction needs to discuss the purpose of the white paper as well as its audience. The conclusion simply restates the main points of the document. In other words, these missing sections will provide the necessary framework for this white paper.
Other minor (though important issues):
Be careful with labels. Page one uses four labels to describe the technology: "open loop," "well," "column well," and "standard common ground well." While these may all be appropriate, you need to settle on a common terminology for the section and the entire white paper. This is also important for the Horizontal and Vertical loops, as both are also "Closed Loops." Be aware of any confusion your labels might create.
The images on pages three and five need a little more attention. The ones on page five have been made almost too small to read and those on page five are hard to make sense of. You need to either create new images, crop the current ones, and/or provide captions that allow a reader to make quick sense of those. Remember, white papers are rarely read all the way through by every reader; some just read the summaries and captions.
Revise the text for concision.
Read text out loud to catch awkward and/or confusion sentence constructions and phrasing.
With these revision, your white paper will be in much better shape.
re: Heat Pump Draft
With respect to the core of the assignment, the white paper is solid: you have outlined four solutions in an unbiased fashion with some attempt to compare them across a common rubric. There is, however, room for improvement in both content and design.
As you revise the white paper, pay attention to the following elements:
Other minor (though important issues):
With these revision, your white paper will be in much better shape.