Group 3 White Paper Rough Draft

Submitted by cligon on Mon, 07/21/2008 - 23:36.
in

This is our rought draft white paper on Google Docs.

Peer Review

Submitted by mervin on Wed, 07/23/2008 - 20:39.

Your paper starts out strong, and the executive summary is well-written. The reader immediately knows the intended audience (Subaru) and purpose of this paper. The only thing I might change is the wording of the last sentence. It's a little awkward as it is. Perhaps change it to "to explore in order to enhance its ability".

Just glancing over the formatting of the paper, it's pretty good and the sections are easy to find. The bulleted lists make it easy to read the pros and the cons. I would just watch the spacing on that. It's inconsistent in some places. I don't think there needs to be a large space at the top of the Pro column on page 7, and try to find a way to fit "limit of 1000 spreadsheets" with the rest of the Spreadsheets section of the Con column on page 6.

For the formatting of the text of the paper, you may want to scoot the bolded headings farther to the left, and then move the paragraphs to the right a little bit, so that they are more under the headings, instead of the headings floating above the paragraphs. Or just align them all on the left. I hope that makes sense. And there is an extra line of space above the Importing/Exporting section on page 5. Lastly, try and break up section VIII into two or three paragraphs instead of one big paragraph.

I think that's all I have. The content of the paper looks good, just give the formatting some fine-tuning.

White Paper Helpful Comments

Submitted by asgarland on Wed, 07/23/2008 - 21:42.

I think the white paper that I see here is very well written. I can tell research was obviously done and the facts are laid out in a very good format. The executive summary gives a good summary that makes the reader want to continue. I would like to mention that the paragraph on file sharing at Subaru seems a little wordy. It seems to talk more about how Subaru has changed over the years, and very little on current practices. Other than this, I think the paper is very good. Below are a few suggestions on grammar that I found. Just trying to help your proof reading for the final copy.

--Bottom of first paragraph of section II: “With Google Docs, the sharing of these documents can be simplified; additionally, the editing, viewing, modifying, checking, sharing, and reviewing can be simplified.” You say sharing twice…sounds awkward.

--In section III: “This elaborate backup plan may be security enough for some
Organizations” –should be “secure enough”

--Third paragraph section IV: “Now, this same person that had all these email attachments and many copies of documents can edit them in one area, save and the newest copy and is instantly updated in one place.” –this sounds weird.

--In section VIII: “It also offers tool for creating documents, spreadsheets, and presentations” ----edit to “tools”

--“There is also a messenger that allows them to communicate instantly like using aim of yahoo messenger.” –should be aim OR yahoo messenger

I hope my comments have helped, and very good job on writing the paper. It rocks! Oh yea, and am a huge Subaru fan, so thanks for writing about SIA!

Andrew Garland

My Peer Review

Submitted by Purdue_ME on Wed, 07/23/2008 - 22:58.

I think overall your paper is very well written. You did a good job of writing the executive summary. It interests the reader so that they will want to continue reading. I might make it its own separate page, rather than including it in the title page. That is just my opinion though, you can keep it if you wish.

As Meredith suggested, I would do something with the titles of the sections. I would either center them to the middle of the page or I would move them all the way to the left. If you keep them where they are it seems that it might look better if you indent the paragraphs.

Also, the idea of the pros/cons section was very good, and I like the format of it, but you might want to make pros/cons match up with each other if possible. Even if they might not relate to each other, it might make it better if you just make them start on the same line #. I hope that makes sense. The way you have it now seems kind of messy and you start out the way it should look, but they gradually moved away from it. I basically mean that dots should line up with dots in the pros/cons section.

I would probably just go ahead and start "Key Features" on a new page since all of the information about it is on the following page anyway. The same goes with the References page. I would probably go ahead and make that its own page as well. It will make the paper look a little neater, even if there are some gaps where you had to add space. As previously mentioned I would also get rid of the extra space above Importing/Exporting.

I might also see if I could add a graph or chart into the document if possible to make sure that it isn't text heavy. It will give the reader a break from reading.

Unfortunately I do not have any grammatical errors to correct since Andrew corrected them all. If you just make some touch-ups I think you will have a very well written white paper. It is in pretty good shape already, so if you make the changes that my group have made on it already, and any of Professor Weber's comments, it should just made it that much better. GOOD JOB!

Comments

Submitted by dank on Wed, 07/23/2008 - 23:44.

Great work on the paper. I definitely think it was very well done, reads very well and covers all the information without any gaps.

Some comments anyways.

The titles, as I think my group members mentioned are inconsistent. Some have periods at the end some don't. Also, the spacing between preceding paragraphs, titles and the next paragraphs are also inconsistent.

The paragraph after "Key Features" is indented more than the other paragraphs, while the bull,ets are indented less than this paragraph. The bullets should be indented more than the paragraph and the text should line up with the rest of the document.

The spacing between bullets is also inconsistent in the table, and it seemed very distracting to me. The same level indents in both columns should have the same spacing between the previous and next lines. The beginning of Page 7 has a large gap between the top of the page and the first point. Is this done just to fill the left side of the column on this page?

I sound really picky about the formatting, but I honestly didn't find all that much else to be picky about with the rest of your paper. Like I said, good work.