Peer Assessment of Group 24
C A T E G O R Y G16 G17 G18 G19 G20 Average
Topic Selection
20 18 20 18 16 18.4
Newspaper and Article Selection
9 5 7 6 8 7
Quality of Editorial Comments
9 9 10 8 9 9
Organic Chemistry Content
9 9 8 8 8 8.4
Selection and Quality of the Links 
16 19 15 14 14 15.6
Format, Number and Types of Questions
6 9 7 8 8 7.6
Quality of the Questions
7 8 5 9 7 7.2
Overall Impression 
8 8 6 7 7 7.2
TOTAL 89.4


Evaluation by Group 16

        (1) Topic Selection: 20 Points (0-20)
                        The topic was quite interesting and related to organic chemistry very well.

        (2) Newspaper and Article Selection: 9 Points (0-10)
                        A more national viewpoint on the issue would have been better.

        (3) Quality of the Editorial Comments: 9 Points (0-10)
                        Topics from biochemistry to the social implications to the controversy provided for good overall coverage.

        (4) Organic Chemistry Content: 9 Points (0-10)
                        There was some lacking in background.  They expected us to read the technical stuff in the web sites.

        (5) Selection and Quality of the Links: 16 Points (0-20)
                        There were a few links, but none were very interesting to look at. (except for the one on controversies)

        (6) Format, Number and Types of Questions: 6 Points (0-10)
                        The first three questions were all identification questions.

        (7) Quality of the Questions: 7 Points (0-10)
                        The questions seemed too easy and did not challenge the reader to examine the chemical process.

        (8) Overall Impression. 8 Points (0-10)
                        It needs minor adjustments, but topic and chemistry relation are good.

                        Everything was fine, except they lacked depth in variety of links and questions.

Evaluation by Group 17

        (1) Topic Selection: 18 Points (0-20)
                        Of high interest to the population.

        (2) Newspaper and Article Selection: 5 Points (0-10)
                        Unsure of newspaper quality.  Article is a little long and too old.

        (3) Quality of the Editorial Comments: 9 Points (0-10)
                        Gave good background info by explaning the structure in detail

        (4) Organic Chemistry Content: 9 Points (0-10)
                        Thoroughly explains relation to organic chemistry with good background info.

        (5) Selection and Quality of the Links: 19 Points (0-20)
                        Very relevent.  You can learn from the links.  Wide variety of info, however, low interaction.

        (6) Format, Number and Types of Questions: 9 Points (0-10)
                        Number and PSP is sufficient, however, variability is lacking.

        (7) Quality of the Questions: 8 Points (0-10)
                        Quality of questions is lacking, however, they are clear and understandable.

        (8) Overall Impression. 8 Points (0-10)
                        Article is good.  With higher quality questions, this article is fit for publication.

Evaluation by Group 18

        (1) Topic Selection: 20 Points (0-20)
                        Relevant. Introduced material that is highly pertinent to social issues that college students deal with.

        (2) Newspaper and Article Selection: 7 Points (0-10)
                        Not authoritative reporting...story not very well-written.

        (3) Quality of the Editorial Comments: 10 Points (0-10)
                        The editorial was more informative/better written than the actual article.

        (4) Organic Chemistry Content: 8 Points (0-10)
                        Need more information about how the actual mechanism works once GHB passes the blood brain barrier (mention that the mechanism is unknown if there is no more information).

        (5) Selection and Quality of the Links: 15 Points (0-20)
                        One didn't work.  You should have indicated that you were aware of the biases behind the Lycaeum Drug Archives (their homepage is filled with things advocating recreational drugs, etc.) You could include this perspective, but make it clear that this is not an objective source.
Also, did you test the recipe? (just kidding.)

        (6) Format, Number and Types of Questions: 7 Points (0-10)
                        Questions fit the categories, but they didn't challenge the reader.

        (7) Quality of the Questions: 5 Points (0-10)
                        Question 1&2 were too vague. Without seeing the answers you gave, many answers could have sufficed. The questions/answers seemed superficial. They didn't really test the chemical aspect.

        (8) Overall Impression. 6 Points (0-10)
                        The topic was interesting. The social issues were well-addressed but it needs stronger chemistry connections.

Evaluation by Group 19

        (1) Topic Selection: 18 Points (0-20)
                        The topic is of interest to a broad segment of the audience especially a college audience because of the environment we are in and the things we do with are free time.  The editorial helped connect the article to the chemistry aspect of the assignment.

        (2) Newspaper and Article Selection: 6 Points (0-10)
                        The article was in a respectable newspaper, but was not altogether science oriented.  They talked more about the effects and legalities of GHB. Having said that the article was interesting and not too lengthy but was over a year old.

        (3) Quality of the Editorial Comments: 8 Points (0-10)
                        As I said the editorial helped connect the article with chemistry. It was clear and concise and well written, with just the right length.

        (4) Organic Chemistry Content: 8 Points (0-10)
                        The chemical issue is clear, you knew you were dealing with ghb and gaba. Reference section was pertinent to back it up

        (5) Selection and Quality of the Links: 14 Points (0-20)
                        The links were well chosen and helped explain the editorial and news article and blended well with the editorial. All of them were relevant, but the second gaba link did not work. I knew it was chem finder but you had to take it upon yourself to find the GABA link.

        (6) Format, Number and Types of Questions: 8 Points (0-10)
                        There are 5 questions and they varied fairly well, but could have been a little more chemical in nature. The last question was a PSP question.

        (7) Quality of the Questions: 9 Points (0-10)
                        The questions are pretty good and fairly easy to answer from the info provided. All could be answered in reasonable time.

        (8) Overall Impression. 7 Points (0-10)
                        I think it would be a useful assignment because it pertains to college students and is very easily connected to chemistry.

                        I enjoyed the article and the editorial and think the webpage was done well. It was informative and done in a way that made it easy to read and understand even if you are chemically illiterate.

Evaluation by Group 20
 (1) Topic Selection: 16 Points (0-20)
                        This is a very interesting topic, and it is relevant to both chemistry and a broad audience.  However, it is not a new topic.

        (2) Newspaper and Article Selection: 8 Points (0-10)
                        This article did not present any new information. Because this topic is one that has been followed closely for the past few years most people are familiar with the bascis of GHB and rohypnol.  It was easy to follow however.

        (3) Quality of the Editorial Comments: 9 Points (0-10)
                        These editorial comments were good, I would suggest incorporating more chemistry into them however.

        (4) Organic Chemistry Content: 8 Points (0-10)
                        We understand that the chemical component has to do with the fact that

        (5) Selection and Quality of the Links: 14 Points (0-20)
                        Some of these links were great, one was not found though.  And the links were not needed to understand any of the questions.  Try to incorporate them.  With the way your questions are written, there was no need for any of your links.

        (6) Format, Number and Types of Questions: 8 Points (0-10)
                        These questions fit the criteria requested.

        (7) Quality of the Questions: 7 Points (0-10)
                        We could answer all of these questions without even looking at links or looking back at the article.  They were too clear and too simple.

        (8) Overall Impression. 7 Points (0-10)
                        It seems like this group worked really hard at the beginning, topic selection, editorial etc, but then you got to the questions and slacked.  You had some great links and you could have incorporated them into the questions to ask some more scientific questions involving how GHB affects the brain,  That is obviously an organic issue, but you failed to explain it or even ask about it.