Peer Assessment of Group 7
C A T E G O R Y G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 Average
Topic Selection
17 20 18 20 20 19
Newspaper and Article Selection
9 8 5 8 3 6.6
Quality of Editorial Comments
8 8 9 9 9 8.6
Organic Chemistry Content
9 10 10 8 10 9.4
Selection and Quality of the Links 
18 18 20 20 20 19.2
Format, Number and Types of Questions
8 10 10 10 10 9.6
Quality of the Questions
8 10 9 8 10 9
Overall Impression 
9 8 5 9 9 8
TOTAL 89.4


Evaluation by Group 1

 (1) Topic Selection: 17 Points (0-20)
                        The name of the article, Return of the Killer Trees, really caught my attention.  The article should be of interest to everyone because pollution is an issue that affects everyone.  The article had a lot of chemical words in it, and had much discussion on the processes leading to air pollution because of the trees.

        (2) Newspaper and Article Selection: 9 Points (0-10)
                        The article was published in the New York Times.  The author seemed well- qualified.  He had a well written article with many facts.  If it was not his own knowledge, then he obtained it from a reliable source.  It was published on Nov. 3, 1998 (within a year).  The article was a decent length and even though it was not as exciting as the title, it does captivate you.

        (3) Quality of the Editorial Comments: 8 Points (0-10)
                        It was well- written, but they seemed a little too in depth.  Instead of giving a brief overview and some background information, it was full of extra information.  The grammar was good, and it was well- organized.

        (4) Organic Chemistry Content: 9 Points (0-10)
                        The key organic chemical was made clear, emission of certain molecules from eucalyptus trees and being oxidized and causing pollution.  Utilizing the links, it was easy to understand what oxidation was occurring.  The reference section was complete.

        (5) Selection and Quality of the Links: 18 Points (0-20)
                        Nine links were in the editorial comments.  They were extremely good with graphs, pictures, diagrams, and drawn- put chemical reactions.  We didlearn from these as they were very informative and interesting. They were embedded well and they were well chosen.

        (6) Format, Number and Types of Questions: 8 Points (0-10)
                        There are 5 questions.  The last one is a PSP. They were varied to a degree, but a few did seem to be stuck on just the aerosols.

        (7) Quality of the Questions: 8 Points (0-10)
                        The questions are good and they address central issues.  They are understandable and workable in a reasonable time period.

        (8) Overall Impression. 9 Points (0-10)
                        With a few typo corrections, the page would be a useful assignment for the class.

Evaluation by Group 2

(1) Topic Selection: 20 Points (0-20)
                        The Backside Attackers have selected a topic that coordinates well with organic chemistry and is not to far stretched.  It was very interesting learning how trees affect cloud production

        (2) Newspaper and Article Selection: 8 Points (0-10)
                        The New York Times is a very high quality newspaper.  The article was written well, and it was published on time.  The unfortunate thing, though, was that we had trouble finding it.  The article was actually hid inbetween two others under the same link.

        (3) Quality of the Editorial Comments: 8 Points (0-10)
                        The Editorial was well written.  They apparently did a lot of research in order find the information that wasn't given in the article. It was kind of choppy in the beginning, and we were confused on where it would go.

        (4) Organic Chemistry Content: 10 Points (0-10)
                        The organic chemical issue was made very clear in the editorial, and they provided suffiecent links to back it up.  They focused their topic on the chemistry and stayed away from the ecology

        (5) Selection and Quality of the Links: 18 Points (0-20)
                        Most of their links where very helpful and they provided pertinant information, they where well embedded within the editorial.  A few, though, where unnecessary and stuck out (They made the reading jumpy)

        (6) Format, Number and Types of Questions: 10 Points (0-10)
                        They had the requested types of questions.  The questions seemed to be diverse and interesting.  There was 5 questions, and the last was a PSP question.

        (7) Quality of the Questions: 10 Points (0-10)
                        Two of their questions where easy but pertained to the article.  The other two where much more difficult and they added balance to the other two.  The harder two where thought provoking and interesting.  The balance allows for them to be worked in reasonable time.  They focus on the topic

        (8) Overall Impression. 8 Points (0-10)
                        The work this group put into their project is easily seen.  We enjoyed evaluating this project, because the topic was very interesting.  Who new trees could produce aerosols that affected the climate?  Their biggest downfall was their lack of clarity.  Sometimes information was unnecessary or hard to follow.  None the less, it was an admirable project.

Evaluation by Group 3

        (1) Topic Selection: 18 Points (0-20)
                        We felt that their topic was very relevant to chemistry and organic chemistry, but we felt that it was very hard to follow and was not really of interest to us.  It did not really catch our attention in any way.  It was, however, relavent and could be interesting to a particular audience.

        (2) Newspaper and Article Selection: 5 Points (0-10)
                        We could not access their article from the New York Times, because we needed a password.  It was from a reputable source but we cannot access it and answer the other questions about it.

        (3) Quality of the Editorial Comments: 9 Points (0-10)
                        Without the article, it was difficult to place the editorial in context.  It was very detailed and at some points difficult to follow.   They had many grammatical errors, but it was still understandable.  They did, however, address the key issues in the topic and did a decent job.  Perhaps more time on the article would have helped.

        (4) Organic Chemistry Content: 10 Points (0-10)
                        The key organic chemistry topics were made clear and we felt that this was one of their strong points in this article.  They had a complete reference section and the compounds in the article were describe in good detail.  They did very good with this topic.

        (5) Selection and Quality of the Links: 20 Points (0-20)
                        All of the links which were used definitely were from reliabe and reputable sources. We felt that all of the links were very stable and were excellent in describing and explaining the concepts in the editorial.  The links also flow well and are embedded very nicely in the context of the editorial.

        (6) Format, Number and Types of Questions: 10 Points (0-10)
                        They met all requirements for this section and we saw no major difficulties or problems with this topic.

        (7) Quality of the Questions: 9 Points (0-10)
                        Their questions were good, but could have been more concise.  One thing needed was a link to the Chemfinder web page in order to answer question 2.  Also the 4th question could have been shorter in answer and more understandable.  Other than that the questions were of good quality and were reasonable.

        (8) Overall Impression. 5 Points (0-10)
                        Overall, this group did an average job.  Perhaps they should have spent more time understanding the topic they chose so that they could have presented it in a clear fashion.  The link to the article was the major problem and we had a difficult time understanding the concepts without it.  For this we chose to give them an average grade.


Evaluation by Group 4

 1. Topic Selection  20/20 pts
        The topic is interesting and has good chemistry content.

  2.  Newspaper and Article Selection  8/10
        The article is too short and does not have enough information to
sink your teeth into.

  3.  Quality of the Editorial Comments  9/10
        The editorial comments are a little confusing. (Are they good or
bad?) They may be a little over our heads.

  4.  Organic Chemistry Content  8/10
        Why is an organic aerosol organic?  We need more background

  5.  Selection and Quality of Links  20/20
        Your links are awesome! We especially liked the global graphics
and the ozone hole tour.

  6.  Format, Number, and Types of Questions  10/10
        You meet the criteria.

  7.  Quality of the Questions  8/10
        We couldn't follos the questions from the information given.  They
were very time consuming.

  8.  Overall Impression  9/10
        It was an interesting topic with great links, but you need more
background to be an useful assignment.

Evaluation by Group 5

   (1) Topic Selection: 20 Points (0-20)
                        we have all ready studied alkenes and so it was good to see it applied to real life situations

        (2) Newspaper and Article Selection: 3 Points (0-10)
                        well, we thought the link to the article was suppose to take us right there, but we were taken to some page to subscribe to the new york times.  it took us forever to get to the article.

        (3) Quality of the Editorial Comments: 9 Points (0-10)
                        good points and info. but just a little too long.

        (4) Organic Chemistry Content: 10 Points (0-10)
                        lots of things were available to explain ozone and aerosols which is what the article focused on

        (5) Selection and Quality of the Links: 20 Points (0-20)
                        all of the links were very helpful.  they went into great detail to explain the trees affect with aerosol and the ozone.  many references to answer questions

        (6) Format, Number and Types of Questions: 10 Points (0-10)
                        great questions with great graphics and complete explanations.  Many different types of questions

        (7) Quality of the Questions: 10 Points (0-10)
                        good graphics, very easy to understand, and take an ideal amount of time and effort to solve

        (8) Overall Impression. 9 Points (0-10)
                        liked the links and the editorial comments.  we had no idea that aerosols have so much effect.  we would recommend this project, but the article was just too hard to get to.