English 202D

Document Review 3: Progress Report for Feasibility Report 

CONTENT: 

1.       Does the writer include all the components of the progress report: Introduction, Purpose Statement, three part Research Overview, Revised Schedule, Conclusion, and Outline for Feasibility Report?

2.       Does the Introduction have clear and effective purpose and preview statement?  Is it centered on the audience (that’s me for this one)? 

3.       Does the Purpose Statement offer an overview of the situation at the center of the writer’s research for the feasibility report?  Does it include portions of the problem statement from the proposal, though not as detailed?  Is it enough of a reminder to the target audience of the problem to effectively inform, but not become repetitive or monotonous to the reader? 

4.       Does the three part Research Plan detail both what research has been completed (is being completed) and what kinds of problems the writer has run into through the process?  Does the Research Completed section show, in specific detail, what research has been done, what it has yielded, and any new information that has been revealed through this research?  Does the Research in Process section show what the author is currently working on in detail?  Does the Forecasted Research section show future research in as much detail as is possible (including dates, names and source names)?  Does the sum of this research seem like enough to base a feasibility report upon?  As the preliminary reader, could you suggest more avenues to explore for this feasibility report?  Do all the sections combine to create the author as a credible researcher who has a solid sense of the information available, where to find it, and how long it takes to complete?   Does the research (and sources of it) sound like it will yield information that will effectively persuade the target audience? 

5.       Does the Revised Schedule give the target audience a clear and definitive sense of what steps must be completed to effectively research the project and deliver a recommendation?  Is it adjusted from the first tentative schedule?  Does it reflect the dates set forth in the research plan?  Does the current and future research seem performable in the timeframe available?  Evaluate the schedule’s visual appeal, readability, and content.

6.       Does the Conclusion ask for authorization to proceed with the research report?  Does it provide a summary of content?

7.       Are Appendices clearly labeled and descriptively titled (i.e. Appendix A: Outline for Feasibility Report)?  Do they carry the same consistent header as the other pages of the report?  Are all appendices referenced in the text?  Are their necessity explained and the information presented on them translated for the target audience? 

8.       Is the Outline for Feasibility Report a clear overview of the topics to be covered in the feasibility report?  Does it include parts such as (but not limited to): Introduction, Criteria for Evaluation, Potential Solutions, Evaluation of Solutions, Recommendations, and Conclusion? (Though some of these may simply state, “To be determined,” they are still parts of the final feasibility report and must be listed).  Are the parts specific but without favoring one choice out of the possible solutions?  Do all numbers or letters of the outline start with the same part of speech in the same tense (verbs, nouns, etc.)?

 

STYLE: 

  1. Is the letter organized clearly?  Is it attractive and professional in its presentation?
  2. Is the letter free or all spelling, punctuation, grammar, and numerical errors?
  3. Does the writer employ active voice, except where appropriate to use passive?
  4. Does the writer use precise, concise, and vivid diction to convey meaning?
  5. Are sentences and paragraphs coherent?  Do they use appropriate transitions?
  6. Is the tone professional and confident?

 

Back to Assignment #4 Main Page