Peer Assessment of Group 24 Peer Assessment of Group 24

Category G16 G17 G18 G19 G20 Average
Visual Appeal 8 8 7 7 9 -
Content 9 9 7 8 9 -
WWW Suitability 10 8 8 10 10 -
Relevance to 210 8 8 9 5 6 -
Personal Gain 10 9 7 7 9 -
TOTAL from Peers 45 42 39 37 43 41
Technical Merit 50+15
TOTAL for GP 106

Evaluation by Group 16
(1) Group Number and Group Name of Evaluators

Our group name is Broken Beakers and our group number is 16.

(2) Group Number and Group Name of Evaluees

We evaluated group number 24 and their name is Kothoga.

Visual appeal  8

The sites were too wordy and didn't make you want to read them.

Content  9

WWW Suitability  10
Relevance to 210  8

We never saw a picture of the chemical formula or much on the chmistry of
this drug.

Personal Gain  10

Total from Peers  45 

Comments:  We liked the brain picture.  Good job!!!!  Nice site.  

Evaluation by Group 17
(1)	17, Catalytic Cretins
(2)	24, Kothoga
(3)	Visual appeal: 8
(4)	Content of site: 9
(5)	WWW suitability: 8
(6)	Relevance to chem 210: 8
(7)	Personal gain: 9

Comments:  Needed a bit more focus, pictures were interesting but not
very chemistry related.  Had some fun with it.

Evaluation by Group 18
(1)  18,  Six String

(2)  24, Kothoga

(3)  Visual Appeal of Site:  7 Points
There was one good chart about the drug effects.  Most other links
didn't have a lot of appeal.

(4)  Content of Site:  8 Points
The content was good for the topic chosen.  

(5)  WWW Suitability:  9 Points
The information that was given was good and contained a lot of
detailed information. Also, information on this topic would not be found in many books or 
magazine articles.
(6)  Relevance to Chem 210:  7 Points
We felt that there was not much relevance to organic chemistry.
However, the site did go into much depth.  

(7)  Personal Gain:  8 Points
We found that the site was interesting but lacked a little relevance to
the class. 

Evaluation by Group 19
1) Group 19
        Brandon Larkin
        Mike Snyder
        Richard Aldenderfer
        Jason Effmann
        Raina Thomas
        Christie Hampton

2) Group 24
	Appleton, Brian
	Appleton, James
	Appleton, Sandra
	Duenne, Catherine
	Duey, Sarah

3) Visual Appeal of the Site:  7 points
Great CAT scan pic.  Really not much other multimedia that pertained to
the topic, other than some small unrelated pictures.

4) Content of the Site:  8 points
Good amount of information presented about the contreversial side of the
topic and about societal beliefs regarding it.  Would have been easier for
viewer to not include a link that simply listed several links to articles.
Picking a few from the list would have presented the information a little

5) WWW Suitablility:  10 points
Great mix of information that was brought together well to the page.
Saves lots of research time that would be needed to find paper material.
Good sites, for the most part.

6) Relevance to Chem 210:  5 points
Really not much chemical information presented.  There was, of course, a
great amount of practical material, but we were not able to sift through
it to find the relevant chemical stuff.

7) Personal gain:  7 points
Site was informative, but at times, confusing and nonrelated.  The first
link about brainteasers and IQ tests was a good way to interact.

Evaluation by Group 20
1.  Group 20 - psyched
2.  Group 24 Kothaga
3.  Visual appeal - score 9
4.  Content - score 9
Provided good information on this news topic, covering both sides on the
validity of the drugs.
5.  Suitability - score 10
You even included an online order form which captures a unique
characteristic of the web.
6.  Relevance - score 6
We felt only relevant sites were four and six.
7.  Gain - score 9
Total = 43