Peer Assessment of Group 12
C A T E G O R Y G6 G7 G8 G9 G10 Average
Topic Selection
20 19 17 15 20 18.2
Newspaper and Article Selection
10 9 8 7 8 8.4
Quality of Editorial Comments
9 10 8 7 10 9.2
Organic Chemistry Content
7 10 6 6 10 7.8
Selection and Quality of the Links 
15 17 16 13 19 16
Format, Number and Types of Questions
8 10 9 8 10 9
Quality of the Questions
7 10 9 8 9 8.6
Overall Impression 
8 8 8 7 10 8.2
TOTAL 85.4


Evaluation by Group 6

 (1) Topic Selection: 20 Points (0-20)
                        We felt that this topic was one that most people would find interesting since air quality is something that affects everyone.  It also seems to have the potential to relate well to chemistry.

        (2) Newspaper and Article Selection: 10 Points (0-10)
                        This article is from the ENN, a very reputable source and is dated Dec. 11, 1998, which makes it current enough.  The author seems to be very qualified and knowledgable.  We found it to be an interesting article.

        (3) Quality of the Editorial Comments: 9 Points (0-10)
                        The editorial comments are overall very good.  They are well written and easy to read.  The comments possibly could have focused more on explaining the chemistry behind the article, going into more depth on the compounds found in smog or the reactions that form them.

        (4) Organic Chemistry Content: 7 Points (0-10)
                        This article had a lot of potential for organic chemistry but we feel that this group did not expand up it very well.  There is a mention of the compounds that make up smog but that was it.  Perhaps the chemical processes that create these compounds or allow them to form acid rain could have been explained.  The pertinant reference section is complete.

        (5) Selection and Quality of the Links: 15 Points (0-20)
                        The very first link for smog was a link to someone's homepage--the language and style of definitely do NOT make it appear to be a reputable or stable source.  The links to Los Angeles and acid rain do not seem to add much to this project. The acid rain one involved Canada although this article did not.  The link to human health was a link to other links but if one took the time, it could be informative.   Overall, there were some good links that were well-embedded and informative but we feel that with a little more searching, more quality links could have been found.

        (6) Format, Number and Types of Questions: 8 Points (0-10)
                        This project had five questions but lacked an ethical one.

        (7) Quality of the Questions: 7 Points (0-10)
                        The last question is a bit far-fetched and confusing.  Also, a possible answer or further explanation could have been given.  There is only one chemistry question (number one.)  We feel that the questions should have focused more on the central issue of the project.

        (8) Overall Impression. 8 Points (0-10)
                        Overall, a good project on an interesting topic but a few minor adjustments in the editorial and links need to be made.

Evaluation by Group 7

 (1) Topic Selection: 19 Points (0-20)
                        Topic(smog) affect everyone and is of interest to a broad audience.  Strong.

        (2) Newspaper and Article Selection: 9 Points (0-10)
                        Never heard of "The environmental News Network" but it sounds good.  Article was published last year and author researched topic sufficiently.

        (3) Quality of the Editorial Comments: 10 Points (0-10)
                        editorial comments helped placed article in greater context:  looks like gorup did a great deal of research on the topic.  Comments clarified the key issues.  Written with good style/grammar and is well organized.

        (4) Organic Chemistry Content: 10 Points (0-10)
       &n 12 Points (0-20)
                        Because there were only four links, that required all of them to be excellent, but we found that only two of the four were really pertinent to the article.  There is an over abundance of information available on the web, but we feel that not enough time was involved to find better links.

        (6) Fand stable.  For example, the 1st link to smog wasn't very high quality-the pictures were nice but the author did not seemed to be an expert on the issue.  it wasn't very scientific link.Also. the URL for the link on Nitrogen was not found, so this obviously was not a very stable link.  The link to L.A. was nice and very informational.  The links are embedded well into comment and the specific purpose of each link was clear.

        (6) Format, Number and Types of Questions: 10 Points (0-10)
                        There were 5 questions and each of them were quality, though-provokingquestions...  The questions varied in the required categories and the last question was a PSP question.

        (7) Quality of the Questions: 10 Points (0-10)
                        The quality of question was excellent and addressed the critical issues.  Written in an understandable and clear fashion.  the questions take reasonable amount of time.

        (8) Overall Impression. 8 Points (0-10)
                        I would consider this a very useful assignement if some minor adjustment-primarily the links- were made.

Evaluation by Group 8

   (1) Topic Selection: 17 Points (0-20)
                        The topic has relevance to most members of the audience.  Everyone at one point or another has to deal with smog and its harmful effects.  However, there is a little bit of a gray area when it comes to the relevance of the topic to organic chemistry.

        (2) Newspaper and Article Selection: 8 Points (0-10)
                        The article is recent and realted to your topic.  The group that is responsible is very knowledgable about the topic and is very qualified to write about this topic. The issue of publishing is also a bit unknown when this comes from the ENN.

        (3) Quality of the Editorial Comments: 8 Points (0-10)
                        The editorial comments really help to bring the article into context since there is little relevance to Organic Chemistry from reading it alone.  One proble is the fact that you mention sulfur oxide and the article mentions sulfur dioxide.

        (4) Organic Chemistry Content: 6 Points (0-10)
                        The key organic isssue was extremely vague.  There was little background and other than drawing a few structures there was little relevance to organic at all.

        (5) Selection and Quality of the Links: 16 Points (0-20)
                        All of your links were relavent to your topic selection.  The one on human health was interesting as well as informative.  The link to the LA smog report was interesting but not really relavent to our class.

        (6) Format, Number and Types of Questions: 9 Points (0-10)
                        Some of your questions were designed to make the reader think.  This is a good characteristic, but other questions seemed trivial.  You satisfied the criteria, but could have been better.

        (7) Quality of the Questions: 9 Points (0-10)
                        It would have been useful to ask questions concerning how the VOC's combine to form smog.  The questions are straight forward and can be accomplished in a reasonable amount of time.

        (8) Overall Impression. 8 Points (0-10)

Evaluation by Group 9
 (1) Topic Selection: 15 Points (0-20)
                        Their topic did not seem to have a basis in organic chemistry.  It dealt more with biological aspects of a disease.  Had it been the treatment of cancer or specific aspects of smog itself, we could see its relevence.

        (2) Newspaper and Article Selection: 7 Points (0-10)
                        The article talked more about smog and pollution in general versus giving specific information of the chemicals of smog and pollution.

        (3) Quality of the Editorial Comments: 7 Points (0-10)
                        The editorial was over generalized.  There was little to no discussion with anything dealing with organic chemistry.

        (4) Organic Chemistry Content: 6 Points (0-10)
                        As stated above, there was little to no discussion of organic chemistry, either in the editorial, article, or the links.  There was brief mention at the end of the editorial about organic oxides, but that was not addressed.

        (5) Selection and Quality of the Links: 13 Points (0-20)
                        This is due to the fact that the link for nitrogen oxides did not work; the other links did not emphasize chemistry, instead showed pictures of Las Angeles, and counties in Las Angeles.  The link for Smog and Health was just a link to other links instead of directing us to a pertinent specific link.  Basically, the link Smog (Ground Level Ozone) was an in depth link, and the Acid Rain link was interesting, but the Smog Check link did not discuss chemistry, and the AIRS Data link again was a link to other links.

        (6) Format, Number and Types of Questions: 8 Points (0-10)

        (7) Quality of the Questions: 8 Points (0-10)

        (8) Overall Impression. 7 Points (0-10)
                        There appears that little time was put into this project, with inconclusive links and lack of relevance to organic chemistry.

Evaluation by Group 10

 (1) Topic Selection: 20 Points (0-20)
                        Good topic which directly or indirectly affects people in the US

        (2) Newspaper and Article Selection: 8 Points (0-10)
                        A little short, needs a little more meat.

        (3) Quality of the Editorial Comments: 10 Points (0-10)
                        Editoral comments were good and inciteful.  Made the topic more clear.

        (4) Organic Chemistry Content: 10 Points (0-10)
                        Well related to the book.

        (5) Selection and Quality of the Links: 19 Points (0-20)
                        A lot of links but could have been a little more interesting.

        (6) Format, Number and Types of Questions: 10 Points (0-10)
                        Format was good and followed the instructions.

        (7) Quality of the Questions: 9 Points (0-10)
                        Question five you could have put your opinion

        (8) Overall Impression. 10 Points (0-10)
                        The page was overall good.  Nice Work!!