Associate Name: Liam McDermott
Main Advisor and OP Reviewer: Jennifer Dauksha-English

Output Packet #:  2		Year: MSc1
Date Submitted: June 24
Date Reviewed: July 24 (waiting on self review)
Mark: 70
Grade: B
Time Spent on Review: 3+0.5

Liam,

I'm so grateful to have had the opportunity to read your Output Packet on solar instal of homestead. Loved the tutorial videos!

My review is broken into these sections:
1. Evaluation Form (attached)
2. Comments Per Section

Required next step: 
- attach your review of peers OP to your OP 2 page
- your self review is blank, please be sure that you upload the form that has your comments and in the future please do this from the beginning - I sent you explicit instructions. It was very hard for me to do this review over 1-month having read your OP then stalled because the self review was empty.

Recommended next step:
- I highly recommend that you relabel the section currently called 2/12 on the first page of your OP. I would also suggest you add contextualizing statements rather than just diving into bullet points, especially with the design. 
- On the page with key terms defined - you have an extra blank text box that would much more professional if you deleted.
- Section 2.10 is completely blank, either get rid of it or add what you intended.
- I think you need to read future OPs over pretending that you are new to the subject - or better yet have a peer do this for you. Still need to work on providing more context/integration:)

This OP was a great example of a technically rich report - well done. I respect your integrity in managing your pathway. I'm glad to be your advisor!

Cheers,
Jennifer

OP REVIEW-------------------------

1. EVALUATION FORM-------------------- 

(attached)

2. (Some) COMMENTS PER SECTION---------------
2.1 Rethinking Energy -- Abstract & Summary
- Great summary of intent, yet this doesn't cover your design process - just the outcomes.
- Good overview of discussion threads. Though I'd recommend that you add a welcome message that invites the reader to engage rather than just diving into bullet points first thing.
- In the project description I am having trouble viewing the numbers 1, 2, and 3 within the text - looks like one big crushed paragraph. I suggest you create spaces between each and/or put a period after the numbers.
- I really like the idea of connecting this data points with your personal experience!
- Why is the section under project description called 2/12 - this seems like a mistake, something unintentional perhaps?
- I do not understand how you just dive into the acronym OBREDIMET without any context. Your external reviewer likely has no idea what this stands for and even I am clueless of what you're trying to convey in this section because 1. your don't even tell us what OBREDIMET stands for, 2. you don't share what the intent behind using the tool means, and 3. tell us what your assessing when providing these brief summary for each phase. You're making too many assumptions for the reader here.

	

	
2.7 Supplemental Videos and Activities and Downloadable articles
- Love the videos. you say bird shit a lot LOL! Your system is the same size as mine. You did a great job explaining the system.  Good job pushing your edge with iMovie and youtube.
-  When you upload articles tell us in the description the name of the author - this is essential. BTW click here link to Greenhouse Gases article doesn't work.	
2.8 Supplemental Journal
- Nice evidence of journal entries!  You have some great pivotal learnings expressed here - thanks for including so many.
	
2.9 Supplemental Designing a Solar System -- Technical
- Excellent that you provided a vocabulary  section aka glossary. This is super supporting evidence - well done!
- You have a blank text box.
- When you mention a downloadable article, as you do under the section called "batteries" - I suggest you either relink to that article directly or at least tell us which page we can find the article.
	
2.10 Supplemental Maintenance of a PV system
- This is completely blank.