Peer Assessment of Group 36
C A T E G O R Y G26 G27 G28 G29 G30 G31 Average
Topic Selection
(0-20)
18 15 20 19 20 20 18.7
Newspaper and Article Selection
(0-10)
2(8) 6 8 10 9 9 7.3(8.5)
Quality of Editorial Comments
(0-10)
7 6 9 5 6 8 6.8
Organic Chemistry Content
(0-10)
5(8) 8 10 6 6 10 7.5(8.1)
Selection and Quality of the Links 
(0-20)
14(18) 14 18 15 13 15 14.8(15.6)
Format, Number and Types of Questions
(0-10)
6(9) 6 8 6 6 4 6(6.6)
Quality of the Questions
(0-10)
7(9) 7 8 7 9 9 7.8(8.2)
Overall Impression 
(0-10)
5 5 9 5 5 7 6
TOTAL 74.9(78.5)

 
 

Evaluation by Group 26
   (1) Topic Selection: 18 Points (0-20)
                        Interesting topic. Relevant to organic chemistry.

        (2) Newspaper and Article Selection: 2 Points (0-10)
                        The newspaper was a good source but could not access it unless had password information. We didn't get to read it.

        (3) Quality of the Editorial Comments: 7 Points (0-10)
                        Good editorial comments cover key issues. The context could have been better. The comments very very short. Two paragraphs

        (4) Organic Chemistry Content: 5 Points (0-10)
                        Plenty of background to understand but not much chemistry was discussed. Description of compound good.

        (5) Selection and Quality of the Links: 14 Points (0-20)
                        We found four links. They could have better. One link didn't seem to relate to the topic.

        (6) Format, Number and Types of Questions: 6 Points (0-10)
                        The questions were okay. There was no PSP question included. No answers were found for the questions.

        (7) Quality of the Questions: 7 Points (0-10)
                        Well written questions and good content.

        (8) Overall Impression. 5 Points (0-10)
                        Needs accessible article. Would be better with major adjustments.

                        It would have been better if we could have accessed the article.
 

Reevaluation by Group 26

group 36...free radicals

newspaper and article selection change from a 2 to 8
        comment:  after re-evaluation we feel that the group made a good
                  and intersting topic from a well known source
organic chemistry content change from a 5 to 8
        comment:  after reading the article, the organic issues where
                  quite clear
selection and quality of the links change from a 14 to 18
format, number, and types of questions change from a 6 to 9
        comment:  the question where of good quality and relevant to the
                   article, but no answers where provided
quality of question change from a 7 to 9
        comment:  the questions dealt with the article and helped in
                  thinging through its topic; also the questions where
                  relevant to organic chemistry
overall impression change from a 5 to 8
        comment:  after re-evaluation we found that the group did a good
                  job of completing the assignment
 

Evaluation by Group 27

        (1) Topic Selection: 15 Points (0-20)
                        This would have included a broad segment of the audience, because everybody knows Mark McGuire.  However, the story did not come up according to the link, so we couldn't read it.

        (2) Newspaper and Article Selection: 6 Points (0-10)
                        It was published in the last year in the New York Times, which is a high quality newspaper.We don't know if the article was too long or exciting because we couldn't get it to come up.

        (3) Quality of the Editorial Comments: 6 Points (0-10)
                        We couldn't compare the editorial comments to the article because we couldn't get the article to come up with the link.  The editorial was short, and the style was jumpy.

        (4) Organic Chemistry Content: 8 Points (0-10)
                        The key organic chemical issue was made fairly clear, but some of the links that were provided to understand the chemistry did not work.  There were a few links, however, that described some of the key issues well.

        (5) Selection and Quality of the Links: 14 Points (0-20)
                        The links did not satisfy the requirements for relevance, quality, and stability.  Two of the main links were not found, and the other links appeared to not be embedded well into the editorial comments. The link for the structure of testosterone was good.

        (6) Format, Number and Types of Questions: 6 Points (0-10)
                        They have only four questions, and the PSP question was number three instead of last.  The questions have no answers, and one of the questions recommends looking at a link that doesn't exist.

        (7) Quality of the Questions: 7 Points (0-10)
                        The questions are decent, but for the most part, they all deal with steroids and not with any other points covered in the editorial comments.  They are clear and understandable, however, without answers we have no way of knowing if they can be worked out in a reasonable amount of time.

        (8) Overall Impression. 5 Points (0-10)
                        We feel that with some major adjustments (mostly link clarification), this article can be a useful assignment.

                        We evaluated based on what we could see on the web page.  When we tried the links for the article, it did not come up.  When we tried the links in the editorial comments, two of them did not work.  Due to these problems, we could not clearly understand the main points and purpose of this news article.
 

Evaluation by Group 28

  (1) Topic Selection: 20 Points (0-20)
                        Very interesting article especially with Mark McQuire.  Involved lots of chemistry with the steroids.

        (2) Newspaper and Article Selection: 8 Points (0-10)
                        Good credible newspaper, but a hassle to get to the article with registering with the paper.

        (3) Quality of the Editorial Comments: 9 Points (0-10)
                        Good write up, could have been alittle longer, maybe more information.

        (4) Organic Chemistry Content: 10 Points (0-10)
                        Steroids was a good organic chemistry connection!  Way to Go!

        (5) Selection and Quality of the Links: 18 Points (0-20)
                        I had trouble with some of the links being able to come up, I never found the one for steroids or creatine.

        (6) Format, Number and Types of Questions: 8 Points (0-10)
                        There were only 4 questions, but they were good ones!

        (7) Quality of the Questions: 8 Points (0-10)
                        Good questions, but lacking answers that were required

        (8) Overall Impression. 9 Points (0-10)
                        A good one to use after the few adjustments with the links has been made and answers for questions provided!
 
 

Evaluation by Group 29

   (1) Topic Selection: 19 Points (0-20)
                        Subject matter is of great interest to sports fans, especially here in mid-Missouri.

        (2) Newspaper and Article Selection: 10 Points (0-10)
                        Good, current article from reputable source.

        (3) Quality of the Editorial Comments: 5 Points (0-10)
                        Comments are short and provide only minimal information.

        (4) Organic Chemistry Content: 6 Points (0-10)
                        If not for links, background information on steroid use would be unaccessable from information given in article and comments.

        (5) Selection and Quality of the Links: 15 Points (0-20)
                        The links that work are interesting and informative.  Several didn't open the intended address.

        (6) Format, Number and Types of Questions: 6 Points (0-10)
                        Questions bring up some good points, but where are the answers? Only 4 questions, where the 3rd, not the final is a PSP question.

        (7) Quality of the Questions: 7 Points (0-10)
                        Well written questions, but a narrow variation in subject matter in questions 1,2,4.

        (8) Overall Impression. 5 Points (0-10)
                        Interesting topic for the McGuire fan, but not a tremendous effert.
 

Evaluation by Group 30
(1) Topic Selection: 20 Points (0-20)
                        It was an interesting topic on a relevant subject that is "catchy" to college students.

        (2) Newspaper and Article Selection: 9 Points (0-10)
                        Good newspaper on a recent topic.  It also had a variety of reliable resources.

        (3) Quality of the Editorial Comments: 6 Points (0-10)
                        There was no explanation of the relevance to Chapter 25.  McGwire was spelled wrong also.  Also the comments were a little short, they needed to add more information.

        (4) Organic Chemistry Content: 6 Points (0-10)
                        Content is there, but they didn't explain or discuss the chemistry aspects enough.  There was not enough background to explain the article and comments also.

        (5) Selection and Quality of the Links: 13 Points (0-20)
                        The creatine and steriods links did not work.  Also the Mayo-Clinic link shouldn't be under Mark McGwire but under building muscle.  Also, the testosterone link did not provide enough valuable information.  The other links however were good.

        (6) Format, Number and Types of Questions: 6 Points (0-10)
                        No answers to questions.  Only four questions were provided also.  Otherwise questions are good with a good variety.

        (7) Quality of the Questions: 9 Points (0-10)
                        The quality was good, and they were relevant to the article and to chemistry.

        (8) Overall Impression. 5 Points (0-10)
                        They didn't take enough time to thoroughly prepare this web page, it looked like they did it at the last minute and they didn't prepare for this assignment.

                        74/100 was their score.
 

Evaluation by Group 31

(1) Topic Selection: 20 Points (0-20)
                        Very interesting.

        (2) Newspaper and Article Selection: 9 Points (0-10)
                        The author took a couple of facts out of context to back up his story.  For example, ESPN and Sports Illustrated claim that the NFL and Olympic Committee will not allow the use of androstenedione because it shows up as positive with their current steroid testing techniques.

        (3) Quality of the Editorial Comments: 8 Points (0-10)
                        The editorial comments were extremely brief and vague (only 7 sentences).  We feel that the group could have easily gone into more detail concerning the ethics of the situation and the multiple opinions concerning the issues raised.

        (4) Organic Chemistry Content: 10 Points (0-10)
                        Nice attempts at emphasizing the chemistry aspects of the topic.

        (5) Selection and Quality of the Links: 15 Points (0-20)
                        Two of the key links do not even work and a third came from a bodybuilding company which could be considered very biased.  Furthermore, their final two links were good, but seemed to be just stuck in at the last minute and not "embedded well into the editorial comments."

        (6) Format, Number and Types of Questions: 4 Points (0-10)
                        We gave one point for every question and one for every answer.  We feel that this is more than fair considering the fact that none of the above requirements were met.

        (7) Quality of the Questions: 9 Points (0-10)
                        There were a few problems including a run-on sentence and the similarity of subject matter in the questions.

        (8) Overall Impression. 7 Points (0-10)
                        Considering all of the above comments, we consider this a more than fair score.  This site would require quite a bit of work before it could be published.