\ Peer Assessment of Group 14
Peer Assessment of Group 14
C A T E G O R Y G6 G7 G8 G9 G10 Average
Topic Selection
20 19 17 20 18 94
Newspaper and Article Selection
9 7 9 9 9 8.6
Quality of Editorial Comments
9 8 10 9 8 8.8
Organic Chemistry Content
9 10 8 9 8 8.8
Selection and Quality of the Links 
19 15 19 18 18 17.8
Format, Number and Types of Questions
10 10 10 9 9 9.4
Quality of the Questions
10 10 9 10 10 9.8
Overall Impression 
9 8 9 9 8 8.6
TOTAL 95 87 91 93 88 91


Evaluation by Group 6

(A)  Group 6  Ejaz 
(B)  Group 14 The Nucleofugs
1.  Topic Selection: 20 pts.
The topic is very interesting and relates to most people and has a very
good connection with organic chemistry.

2.  Newspaper and Article Selection:9 pts.
The article is from a good newspaper and is fairly recent. 

3.  Quality of the Editorial Comments:  9 pts.
The editorial comments organized and gave good background information.

4.  Organic Chemistry Content: 9 pts.
The article and editorial comments related very well to organic

5.  Selection and Quality of the Links:  19 pts.
The links helped explain the chemistry and also proved to be informative
and interesting.

6.  Format, Number and Types of Questions:  10 pts.
The questions met the requirements.

7.  Quality of Questions:  10 pts.
The main issues are addressed and the problems can be done in a
reasonable amount of time.

8:  Overall Impression:  9 pts.
Excellent project.  The subject matter is quite interesting and the
editorial comments are very helpful.

Total= 95 pts.


Evaluation by Group 7

(A) Group 7 The Morning Addition

(B) Group 14 The Nucleofugs


(1) Topic Selection: 19 pts

Applies to a wide audience and is relevant to organic chemistry.

(2) Article Selection: 7 pts

We have never heard of this source, article was very lengthy and lacked
excitement although interesting.  

(3) Editorial Comments: 8 pts

The editorial comments stem mainly from your links and not from the
article itself.  Everything else was good.

(4) Chemistry Content: 10 pts

Very pertinent.

(5) Selection of links: 15 pts

Several links were questionable in their purpose of enhancing the article,
it seems as though they were included for the sole purpose of being
included.  Some of the links had no real function i.e. Mars although
interesting side-notes.

(6) Types of Questions: 10 pts

Very good and detailed.  Helped exemplify the article.

(7) Quality of Questions: 10 pts

Questions were clear and reasonable.

(8) Overall Impression: 8 pts

Article was relevant but way too long and did not help support the
editorial comments as did most of the links.  Good job.

Total: 87 pts


Evaluation by Group 8

(A)Group 8: The Underground (Formerly known as Don's Group)

(B)Group 14: The Nucleofugs

    1)Topic Selection: 17 points
            While the topic of chocolate is very relevant to our lives 
            (everyone loves chocolate), it only briefly mentioned organic
            chemistry, and it was at times hard to establish a clear-
            cut connection to organic chemistry.  

    2)Newspaper and Article Selection: 9 points
            It was a reputable source, however, although author is a
            "science writer," he/she did not provide expertise in 
            terms of expanding concepts mentioned in the article.

    3)Quality of Editorial Comments: 10 points
            Editorial comments complemented and brought together key
            issues in the article.
    4)Organic Chemisty Content: 8 points
            Several organic chemistry subjects were referenced, but
            there did not seem to be a clear focus on the specifics 
            of chocolate as it applies to organic chemistry topics.

    5)Selection and Quality of Links: 19 points
            We think the links were good for the choice of topic 
            (it was probably difficult to link chocolate to pure 
            chemistry websites).  One point was deducted because it
            somewhat difficult to find a definite connection to chocolate
            in your given chemistry related links. 

    6)Format, Number, and Types of Questions: 10 points
            All questions fullfilled pre-set requirements.

    7)Quality of Questions: 9 points
            Questions seemed to address the central issues, although
            some were difficult to understand (a lot of discussion before
            getting to the heart of a question, it seemed. Maybe some 
            of the background information mentioned in questions could
            have been mentioned in the Editorial Comments.

    8)Overall Impression: 9 points
            Project would be excellent for discussion applied chemistry,
            however, the presence of hard science in the project was
            somewhat lacking.  Overall, we think the project is a quality,
            thought invoking work, and obvioulsy had a lot of effort put

            into it.

Total of points allocated: 91 out of 100.


Evaluation by Group 9

A Group 9
B Group 14
    1. Topic Selection: 20/20╩
    2. Newspaper and article selection: 9/10 - the article was very long.
It would be better to have a shorter article, then give us the information
in links.
    3. Organic chemistry content: 9/10 - They seemed to repeat the
article.  It was still very long.
    4. Organic chemistry content:╩9/10 - Lacked depth
    5. Selection and qualtiy of links: 18/20 - Links were a bit dry.  We
have already read one news paper type article, so give us the rest of the
information in         a different way.╩Missing sufficient links╩
    6. Format, number, and types of questions:  9/10 - Still very lengthy.
    7. Quality of questions: 10/10
    8. Overall impression: 9/10 - Think of it this way.  If you were a
student who had to go over this news item as an assignment, by the end,
how much                 effort would you be╩putting in to it.  It is
simply╩too long.
Total - 93/100 


Evaluation by Group 10

(A) Group 10 JDK
(B) Group 14 The Nucleofugs
1. Topic Selection 18 pts
The creativity of the topic was not that great since another group chose
the same topic.

2. Newspaper and Article Selection 9 pts
The article although from a good source, was a bit long.

3. Quality of Editorial Comments 8 pts
Overall the comments were good, however typos and awkward wording
(especially the first sentence) distracted us.  The comments also seemed
to wander in focus.

4.  Organic Chemistry Content 8 pts
We were unclear which compounds were involved in damage or health
benefits.  Lots of general names, but what about structures and IUPAC

5. Selection and Quality of Links 18 pts
The link in question is the threobromine link╔how does the toxicity of
chocolate to dogs relate to the rest of the project?

6. Format, Number, and Types of Questions 9 pts
The questions although good, were a bit long.

7. Quantity of Questions 10 pts
The types of questions varied and additional references were provided if
they were needed.

8. Overall impression 8 pts
After a few minor revisions, an outstanding project would be produced.