Peer Assessment of Group 14
C A T E G O R Y G6 G7 G8 G9 G10 Average
Topic Selection
(0-20)
20 19 18 18 20 19
Newspaper and Article Selection
(0-10)
8(9) 7 9 8 10 8.4(8.6)
Quality of Editorial Comments
(0-10)
6(8) 8 7 7(8) 9 7.4(8)
Organic Chemistry Content
(0-10)
9 10 8 8 10 9
Selection and Quality of the Links 
(0-20)
16 18 16 15(18) 20 17(17.6)
Format, Number and Types of Questions
(0-10)
8 7 8 7(8) 10 8(8.2)
Quality of the Questions
(0-10)
9 9 9 8 10 9
Overall Impression 
(0-10)
7(8) 8 8 7(8) 10 8(8.4)
TOTAL 85.8(87.8)

 
 

Evaluation by Group 6
1) Topic Selection: 20 pts

The topic that this group selected has a large impact on our society, and
thus is of great interest to broad segments of the audience.
There is also a direct connection between the topic that the "O" squad has
selected and organic chemistry.  Great Topic.

2) Newspaper and Article Selection: 8 pts.

The source of the article is The New York Times; a highly reputable
source.  Considering her strong background in nutrition, the author, Jane
Brody, is strongly qualified to write on the science included in this
article. However, the article was published before 1/1/98.  We would
also like to note that we found it a bit bothersome that we had to
"sign-in" to the New York Times web page in order to get access to the
article.  Please note, however, that we did not take off for this
inconvenience.

3) Quality of the Editorial Comments: 6 pts.

The editorial included wrong information.  The article clearly states that
90 % of age-related macular degeneration is the dry form. However, the
editorial states that the less common of the two types of deterioration is
the dry form.  The editorial also conveys wrong information when it
states that the leaking capillaries cause the detachment of the retinal
epithelium.  This is not true.  It is the formation of the new blood
vessels beneath the retina which push up on the retina, thus resulting in
the detachment.  It is not the leaking that cause it.

4) Organic Chemistry Content: 9 pts.

We thought the "O" squad provided good organic chemistry content.  The
structures included in the editorial were a nice feature.  However, we did
think that the free radical chapter in the book was an extremely pertinent
chapter which should have been referenced.

5) Selection and Quality of Links: 16 pts.

The majority of the links were press releases and catalogs.  Such sources
are often biased and should not be relied upon for scientific knowledge.
Thus, we thought that better links to more reputable links should have
been used.

6) Format, Number and Types of Questions: 8 pts.

No PSP question.

7) Quality of Questions: 9 pts.

Good questions, but we would have liked to have seen more questions
regarding steroids which are suppose to be a main focus of their
project.

8) Overall Impression: 7 pts.

Great topic and good organic chemistry addressed, but needs major
adjustments in editorial and links. Wrong information supplied in
editorial, and many of the links are weak scientific sources.
 

Total pts: 84 pts
 

Reevaluation by Group 6

1) Topic Selection: 20 pts

The topic that this group selected has a large impact on our society, and
thus is of great interest to broad segments of the audience.
There is also a direct connection between the topic that the "O" squad has
selected and organic chemistry. Great Topic.

2) Newspaper and Article Selection: 9 pts.

The source of the article is The New York Times; a highly reputable
source. Considering her strong background in nutrition, the author, Jane
Brody, is strongly qualified to write on the science included in this
article. However, the article was published before 1/1/98. We would
also like to note that we found it a bit bothersome that we had to
"sign-in" to the New York Times web page in order to get access to the
article. Please note, however, that we did not take off for this
inconvenience.

3) Quality of the Editorial Comments: 8 pts.

The editorial included wrong information. The article clearly states that
90 % of age-related macular degeneration is the dry form. However, the
editorial states that the less common of the two types of deterioration is
the dry form. The editorial also conveys wrong information when it
states that the leaking capillaries cause the detachment of the retinal
epithelium. This is not true. It is the formation of the new blood
vessels beneath the retina which push up on the retina, thus resulting in
the detachment. It is not the leaking that cause it.

4) Organic Chemistry Content: 9 pts.

We thought the "O" squad provided good organic chemistry content. The
structures included in the editorial were a nice feature. However, we did
think that the free radical chapter in the book was an extremely pertinent
chapter which should have been referenced.

5) Selection and Quality of Links: 16 pts.

The majority of the links were press releases and catalogs. Such sources
are often biased and should not be relied upon for scientific knowledge.
Thus, we thought that better links to more reputable links should have
been used.

6) Format, Number and Types of Questions: 8 pts.

No PSP question.

7) Quality of Questions: 9 pts.

Good questions, but we would have liked to have seen more questions
regarding steroids which are suppose to be a main focus of their
project.

8) Overall Impression: 8 pts.

Great topic and good organic chemistry addressed, but needs major
adjustments in editorial and links. Wrong information is supplied in
editorial, and many of the links are weak scientific sources.
 
 
 

Evaluation by Group 7

  (1) Topic Selection: 19 Points (0-20)
                        The topic was interesting to a broad number of audiences.  everyone is concerned with the eyesight.  The discussion in the editorial comments is more related to that of free radicals, whereas this topic is not as evident from the article itself.

        (2) Newspaper and Article Selection: 7 Points (0-10)
                        The date of the article was too old.  The reputation of the newspaper was good.  The author's qualificatin was not available, but they did seem knowledgeable.

        (3) Quality of the Editorial Comments: 8 Points (0-10)
                        The editorial comments did clarify the goal of presenting us with information on free radicalization.  The grammer was fine, however the structure was not that of requested.

        (4) Organic Chemistry Content: 10 Points (0-10)
                        The chemistry described is clear and easy to understand.  The reference section is good as well.

        (5) Selection and Quality of the Links: 18 Points (0-20)
                        Aging link is not as pertinent as the others.  the quality of remaining links were excelent. especially those describing the molecules in detail.

        (6) Format, Number and Types of Questions: 7 Points (0-10)
                        The last question is not a PSP question.

        (7) Quality of the Questions: 9 Points (0-10)
                        Questions were provided with high quality.

        (8) Overall Impression. 8 Points (0-10)
                        Minor adjustments needed but good overall.
 

Evaluation by Group 8

 (1) Topic Selection: 18 Points (0-20)
                        In the topic chosen by group 14, we feel that it is a sufficient topic, that should be of concern to the general public.  It seems that macula degeneration is mainly a disease of those over 65, thus not a topic of concern for most of us toward whom this project is aimed; however, it will more than likely be a concern for us when we get older.  It is fairly well-related to organic chemistry.

        (2) Newspaper and Article Selection: 9 Points (0-10)
                        The article chosen to address this topic was sufficient.  It was published by the New York Times on the Internet by a nutrition expert hoping to inform the public about this harmful disease.  It was published more than a year ago (July 2, 1997).  It was well-written to maintain the attention of those interested in the disease.

        (3) Quality of the Editorial Comments: 7 Points (0-10)
                        The editorial comments were hard to follow and confusing.  There seemed to be less focus on the chemical aspect, and more on the biological aspect of the disease.  Instead of helping to explain how this process and chemistry affects daily life, we felt the comments were too much like a textbook and lacked enthusiasm for the subject.  However, they offered the structures of the compounds discussed in the article and pictures to make it more interesting.

        (4) Organic Chemistry Content: 8 Points (0-10)
                        Several references to organic chemistry were made through oxidation, antioxidants, free radicals, and wavelengths of light.

        (5) Selection and Quality of the Links: 16 Points (0-20)
                        Some of the links to this project seemed to be effective; however, we had trouble finding justification for a couple of them.  Three of the links were set up to very interesting home pages, while the others were to smaller pages that may lack reliability on the subject matter.  Over all we found the links to be pretty good, though some of them were hard to follow.

        (6) Format, Number and Types of Questions: 8 Points (0-10)
                        In this area the group excelled.  The questions were relevant to the class and focused on the chemical aspect of the disease.  The questions were to the point, easy to follow, and helped to clarify the subject matter.  However, they did not have the required PSP question and only seemed to offer informative-type questions dealing directly with the article and links.

        (7) Quality of the Questions: 9 Points (0-10)
                        The questions asked were very direct and to the point.  They were clearly stated and addressed several aspects of the chemistry focus part of the topic.  The questions we feel were very good and asked things that help the reader better understand the subject matter.  They are easy to answer and not at all vague.  They have set answers that are easy to find within the text of the project.  They are also short enough that they can be worked in a reasonable amount of time.

        (8) Overall Impression. 8 Points (0-10)
                        With a few minor revisions this problem set would be very effective.  The only problem with it is the coherence of the editorial comments and the irrelevance of the links.  Some of the links were very good, and with a little more focus on the chemical aspect, this would be a very good problem set.
 

Evaluation by Group 9

   (1) Topic Selection: 18 Points (0-20)
 

        (2) Newspaper and Article Selection: 8 Points (0-10)
 

        (3) Quality of the Editorial Comments: 7 Points (0-10)
                        There was a glaring error in there editorial making it appear that they did not read the complete article.

        (4) Organic Chemistry Content: 8 Points (0-10)
 

        (5) Selection and Quality of the Links: 15 Points (0-20)
                        One link had no pertinence, one link was only an abstract, therefore did not give the information that we saught, a few links were unecessary and a few were repetitive, thus creating an over abundance of links that should have been limited to just a few rather than twelve.

        (6) Format, Number and Types of Questions: 7 Points (0-10)
                        The thought question was absent, and the others were not sufficient enough to make up for that absence.

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

        (8) Overall Impression. 7 Points (0-10)
                        This is due to the over abundance of irrelevent links, the error in the editorial, and the absence of the thought provoking question.
 

Reevaluation by Group 9

   (1) Topic Selection: 18 Points (0-20)
 

        (2) Newspaper and Article Selection: 8 Points (0-10)
 

        (3) Quality of the Editorial Comments: 8 Points (0-10)
 

        (4) Organic Chemistry Content: 8 Points (0-10)
 

        (5) Selection and Quality of the Links: 18 Points (0-20)
                        We felt that a few links were unnecessary and became repetitive.

        (6) Format, Number and Types of Questions: 8 Points (0-10)
                        We felt the thought question was absent.

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

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

Evaluation by Group 10

 (1) Topic Selection: 20 Points (0-20)
                        Good topic that was informative.

        (2) Newspaper and Article Selection: 10 Points (0-10)
                        New York times which is a creditable source.  It was interesting.

        (3) Quality of the Editorial Comments: 9 Points (0-10)
                        Awesome web sight with all of the pictures and structures that are relevent.  Sometimes you lost us in the words you used.

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

        (5) Selection and Quality of the Links: 20 Points (0-20)
                        Very relevent links that inhanced the web page.

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

        (7) Quality of the Questions: 10 Points (0-10)
                        Very good questions that made us think.

        (8) Overall Impression. 10 Points (0-10)
                        Awesome web page with the pictures.  Really grab our attention.