Peer Assessment of Group 4
C A T E G O R Y G32 G33 G34 G35 G36 G37 Average
Topic Selection
(0-20)
17 19 18 18 20 19 18.5
Newspaper and Article Selection
(0-10)
8 9 9 10 10 10 9.3
Quality of Editorial Comments
(0-10)
8 7 10 9 9 8 8.5
Organic Chemistry Content
(0-10)
8 6 9 9 9 8 8.2
Selection and Quality of the Links 
(0-20)
18 17 18 19 20 20 18.7
Format, Number and Types of Questions
(0-10)
9 9 10 10 10 10 9.7
Quality of the Questions
(0-10)
9 9 10 10 10 8 9.3
Overall Impression 
(0-10)
8 8 9 10 10 8 8.8
TOTAL 91

 
 

Evaluation by Group 32

 (1) Topic Selection: 17 Points (0-20)
                        Good topic.  Health effects each and everyone of us; therefore, this appeals to a broad audience.
 

        (2) Newspaper and Article Selection: 8 Points (0-10)
                        The support given through research makes this article very credible.

        (3) Quality of the Editorial Comments: 8 Points (0-10)
                        There is some redundancy between the article and editorial.  Overall it is well written and leads into the article nicely.

        (4) Organic Chemistry Content: 8 Points (0-10)
                        The article shows how proteins directly effect human health and shows how organic chemistry is working all around us.

        (5) Selection and Quality of the Links: 18 Points (0-20)
                        Your links are excellent.  The diagrams, structures, etc were very informative.  Nice job surfing the net to find them.

        (6) Format, Number and Types of Questions: 9 Points (0-10)
                        Nice job with the question set.

        (7) Quality of the Questions: 9 Points (0-10)
                        Very reasonable question set.

        (8) Overall Impression. 8 Points (0-10)
                        Nice job overall.  This is definately good enough to use in a educational setting.  Great job finding such an up to date article.
 

Evaluation by Group 33

1. Topic Selection: 19 points
2. Newspaper and article selection:9 points
3. Quality of editorial comments: 7 points
4. Organic Chemistry Content: 6 points
5. Selection and quality of the links: 17 points
6. Format, Number and Types of Questions: 9 points
7. Quality of questions: 9 points
8. Overall Impression: 8 points

Evaluation by Group 34

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

        (2) Newspaper and Article Selection: 9 Points (0-10)
                        article doesnt seem to be as organically involved as other articles

        (3) Quality of the Editorial Comments: 10 Points (0-10)
                        think the editorial is actually better than the article

        (4) Organic Chemistry Content: 9 Points (0-10)
                        as before doesnt seem to be as organically related

        (5) Selection and Quality of the Links: 18 Points (0-20)
                        links follow the topic, however some were not very informative

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

        (7) Quality of the Questions: 10 Points (0-10)
                        questions really interesting and thought provoking

        (8) Overall Impression. 9 Points (0-10)
 
 

Evaluation by Group 35

    (1) Topic Selection: 18 Points (0-20)
                              It was an interesting topic, but I think that it could have been more interesting if the group had talked more about the effects of the drug on a personal level, does it allow for a more comfortable post-op?, how does it affect the patient in other ways?, does it cost more?

        (2) Newspaper and Article Selection: 10 Points (0-10)
                              It was a good article, very recent.  The topic was relatively intersting.

        (3) Quality of the Editorial Comments: 9 Points (0-10)
                            The editorial comments were good.  They did a good job of explaining how the drug worked, and they put some interesting links in there.  However, one of the links were "Not Found" (Abbots Lab).  I also think that they should have gone into more detail about the differences between ischemic and hemmorhic strokes. It was pretty well written.

        (4) Organic Chemistry Content: 9 Points (0-10)
                          It was relatively clear.  Sufficiently described.

        (5) Selection and Quality of the Links: 19 Points (0-20)
                            There was good use of the links,and there purpose was clear.  There were a few very good links.  The only problem here was that the one Abbots Lab link was not easily tracked.

        (6) Format, Number and Types of Questions: 10 Points (0-10)
                             There were a sufficient number of questions, and they were thought provoking.  I liked this group's questions, mostly because they tested if the reader got the main points presented by the topic and editorial comments.  However, the answers were not readily available, and it was somewhat frustrating looking through the links to find them.  But!!! I especially liked there last question.  The PSP question was excellent.

        (7) Quality of the Questions: 10 Points (0-10)
                            Good questions.

        (8) Overall Impression. 8 Points (0-10)
                             It was very good.  I honestly liked it, and the only reason I am giving it an eight is because some groups just put a lot of effort, and I had to differentiate.  I think it was a good article and I think I'd publish it.

                               Could have been broken down better in the editorial comments, but at the same time this made the reader have to look harder, but not everybody has that kind of time.
 

Evaluation by Group 36

(1) Topic Selection: 20 Points (0-20)
                        The selected topic was one of interest and importance to the medical and science fields.

        (2) Newspaper and Article Selection: 10 Points (0-10)
                        Yes, the article was published in a high quality newspaper, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch to be exact.  The author seemed to be credible.  The article was published recently (1999).  The article was of good lenghth and kept us interested.

        (3) Quality of the Editorial Comments: 9 Points (0-10)
                        The editorial comments gave us good insite into the details of the article and highlighted the main points.  It was well organized and the grammar was also high quality.  There were, maybe, a couple of new vocabulary words that could have been clarified (i.e. cyanosis).  However, the editorial comments left us impressed.

        (4) Organic Chemistry Content: 9 Points (0-10)
                        The key organic chemical issue was sort of cloudy.  However, the pertinent reference sections of the chem book lend a helping hand.  Also, their description of the way the drug gets rid of blood clots was very clear and helped in the understanding of the article.

        (5) Selection and Quality of the Links: 20 Points (0-20)
                        Yes, yes, yes, and yes are the answers to those questions.  The links were relevant and credible.  We learned quite a bit from the links.  The links' functions were made clear. etc. etc.

        (6) Format, Number and Types of Questions: 10 Points (0-10)
                        Not much to say here.  The format was followed that Dr. Glaser implemented.  The last question was a philosophical, societal, and political implication question.

        (7) Quality of the Questions: 10 Points (0-10)
                        The questions were very reasonable, understandable, and didn't take too long to answer.

        (8) Overall Impression. 10 Points (0-10)
                        If we were Chemistry 210 teachers we would definitely consider this group's news item for publication.  Anyone, not just students in Chem 210, could read this newsitem and have a good understanding of what's going on in the health industry in dealing with strokes and other issues dealing with blood clots.  It may take someone like Dr. Glaser to understand and be able to explain the organic importance but with this group's newsitem even that could be partially understood.  The whole shabang just left us, overall, impressed!

                        none

Evaluation by Group 37

 (1) Topic Selection: 19 Points (0-20)
                        Very topical article. Would have a large audience in interest. I think the topic had a bit more relevance to biology than the chemistry.

        (2) Newspaper and Article Selection: 10 Points (0-10)
                        Article was written in a high quality newspaper. The author seem to be quailified to write the article.The article was published in feb 99 which is well before the cut off date. The article was of a good length. Held our interest.

        (3) Quality of the Editorial Comments: 8 Points (0-10)
                        Grammar and style of the editorial comments were fine. The key issues were way over our heads and seemed difficult to grasp.

        (4) Organic Chemistry Content: 8 Points (0-10)
                        There was a strong biloligical inflence in the editorial but the chemistry didn't seem to be there as much.

        (5) Selection and Quality of the Links: 20 Points (0-20)
                        These links astounded us we thought they were wonderful.

        (6) Format, Number and Types of Questions: 10 Points (0-10)
                        6 questions were there, one more than asked for. They varied in topic.  The last question was PSP.

        (7) Quality of the Questions: 8 Points (0-10)
                        Questions lacked the organic chemistry involved. They seemed centered around a biological perspective.

        (8) Overall Impression. 8 Points (0-10)
                        The project was great if it were for a biology class. It just didn't seem fit for what a chemistry class was looking for.