Peer Assessment of Group 1
C A T E G O R Y G30 G31 G32 G33 --- Average
Topic Selection
20 20 20 20 - 20
Newspaper and Article Selection
10 9 10 10 - 9.8
Quality of Editorial Comments
7 7 10 10 - 8.5
Organic Chemistry Content
9 9 8 10 - 9
Selection and Quality of the Links 
15 17 15 17 - 16
Format, Number and Types of Questions
10 10 8 10 - 9.5
Quality of the Questions
10 9 8 9 - 9
Overall Impression 
10 9 8 9 - 9
TOTAL 91 90 87 95 - 90.75


Evaluation by Group 30

(A) Auf Wiedersehen, Group 30

(B) Evan's Group, Group 1


(1) Topic Selection: 20/20
This is a good choice as it is a hot topic on college campuses and is drug
related to o

(2) Newspaper and Article Selection: 10/10
It was new and published in a respectable newspaper.  It sounds like the
journalist knew
what they were talking about.

(3) Quality of the Editorial Comments: 7/10
Most of it is just paraphrased from the article, except the last

(4) Organic Chemistry Content: 9/10
The action of the drug information could have been expanded on, but what
was there was

(5) Selection and Quality of the Links: 15/20
Only two of the links worked in the editorial, but they were good.  One
other was broken,
and the last crashed my computer twice and made me lose this review.  But
that probably is
not their fault.

(6) Format, Number and Types of Questions: 10/10
The questions were formatted perfectly.

(7) Quality of the Questions: X Points 10/10
They were thought prevoking and intelligent.  Perfect.

(8) Overall Impression. X Points 10/10
It looked good.  The only problem was the links, but that just comes along
with the web we
think.  This is a good article.  We would publish it.

Total: 91/100


Evaluation by Group 31

    Group 31's Evaluations

  Group 1

  Topic Selection: 20--Recent article and relevant toward college aged
  Newspaper and Article Selection: 9--Detroit News isn't really
known for its coverage on scientific news, but it is recent.
  Quality of Editorial Comments: 7--COmments state that GHB is a schedule
1 drug when it states in your link that it is schedule 3.  GBL is stated
to be the paint remover and the sexual enhancer in your links-not GHB.
  Organic Chemistry COntent: 9--We know GHB is a carboxylic acid-little
else was explained.
  Selection and Quality of the Links: 17--Good links but not consistent
with editorial comments.
  Format, Number and Types of Questions: 10--Good number and format.
  Quality of the Questions: 9--Questions 3 and 4 seem too simple and quite
  OVerall Impression: 9--Good Job-Just needs some clarification.
  Total:  90


Evaluation by Group 32

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 22:49:08 -0500 (CDT)
From: Michael Staed 
To: Dr. Rainer Glaser 
Subject: Group 32 (The Chemistry Dorks) Peer Reviews

Group 32 (The Chemistry Dorks) Peer Evaluation of Group 1 (Evans Group)

Topic			20   (Interesting and very important)

Article			10   (Well chosen, again very important issue)

Comments		10   (Well written)

O. Chem			8    (Not a lot of connection drawn, but

Links			15    (Few in number, some broken)

Question Format		8    (Acceptable)

Question Quality	8    (Good)

Overall			8    (Pretty good, almost fit to publish)

Total			87


Evaluation by Group 33

(A) Group Number and Group Name of Evaluating Unit
Group 33: The Functional Group

(B) Group Number and Group Name of Evaluated Unit
Group 1: Evans Group

(C) Responses to Various Evaluation Categories

(1) Topic Selection: 20 Points (0-20)
The topic is of great interest to anyone in this day and time, especially
within our age group.  

(2) Newspaper and Article Selection: 10 Points (0-10)
The article was well written, easy to follow, and very informative.  It
was also from a reputable source.  

(3) Quality of the Editorial Comments: 10 Points (0-10)
It summarized the article effectively and also added additional
information that is relevant to the topic. 

(4) Organic Chemistry Content: 10 Points (0-10)
The topic related well with what we are currently studying in organic
chemistry, and the group made good connections and references. 

(5) Selection and Quality of the Links: 17 Points (0-20)
The Congressional Bill link was really good, however, we felt that the
first two links were repetitious and the narcolepsy link was a stretch.   

(6) Format, Number and Types of Questions: 10 Points (0-10)
The requirements were fulfilled. 

(7) Quality of the Questions: 9 Points (0-10)
All the questions were good except for the synthesis problem, which was a
little unclear. 

(8) Overall Impression: 9 Points (0-10)
The group put a lot of work into this project, but there should be some
minor adjustments.  Overall, it was well done.

Total Score: 95/100