Peer Assessment of Group 24
C A T E G O R Y G16 G17 G18 G19 G20 Average
Topic Selection
(0-20)
19 (16) 20 19 20 18 19.2
Newspaper and Article Selection
(0-10)
8 (7) 9 10 7 10 8.8
Quality of Editorial Comments
(0-10)
9 10 10 10 9 9.6
Organic Chemistry Content
(0-10)
9 (8) 10 9 9 10 9.4
Selection and Quality of the Links 
(0-20)
20 18 19 18 20 19
Format, Number and Types of Questions
(0-10)
10 9 10 10 10 9.8
Quality of the Questions
(0-10)
9 9 9 7 10 8.8
Overall Impression 
(0-10)
9 10 10 8 9 9.2
TOTAL 93 (88) 95 96 89 96 93.8

 
 

Evaluation by Group 16

Subject:  group 24 by group 16
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 20:53:56 PDT


1) 16/20	boring, confusing, not coherent, doesn't flow
2) 7/10	not exciting
3) 9/10
4) 8/10	article is not good
5) 20/20	great links- cool, interesting, useful
6) 10/10	have all five types
7) 9/10
8) 9/10
total   88/100


-----

Group 16's second look at Group 24's project

To Group 24:
While we appreciate your views on our review...our group met again and
took at closer and longer look at your article. Here is our findings:

Topic selection:  We were confused by the title...so we looked to the
article itself to judge the topic selection...we did not find it as
intresting to a broad audience...the article (AKA the topic) seemed
scientific in nature.  While we agreed that it was perhaps a little too
harsh! We decided to to give your group a 19/20.  We did see the
connection to class and labs... however, it was a little confusing for the
broader audience to comprehend the topic meaning.  I hope this is
satisfying to your group and answers your questions.

Newspaper and article selection: We felt the article was confusing and
not well put together...  It was not of much interest to us.  The quality
seem good and the author seemed to know what was discussed.  Where it left
us to be desired is in the way the information was presented and the
interest level... upon closer look our group decided to give your group
8/10.  It was good just not perfect and left some "holes" to fill in.

Quality of Editorial Comments: The point taken off was because the way it
was written made it hard to read, here I am referring to the nature it was
placed around the pictures.  It was very distracting!  It made the
comments hard to read.  It did not seem to be based on research guided by
your group and mostly on the article.  While they were well thought out
and coherent, our group wanted to see more research of the chemicals.
Don't get me wrong the were good comments.  We also felt the pictures were
to big...it caused us some problems in reading the comments.  We would
have liked the smaller or if need click to make the bigger or click to a
link showing the bigger picture.  I guess the  organization and placing
the article in greater light was where the one point was taken off.  It is
only one point!

Organic Chemistry Content: While I agree that the article mentions lots of
chemistry we thought is only did that mentioned it...we wanted to see more
explaining or going into the chemistry.  We know that the articles don't
have to come right out with the chemistry but we wanted more than
mentioning the chemistry... it would have been better if it was discussed
in the editorial comments but it was not...the links might be useful to
see the chemistry better...but we wanted to see it in the article or the
Editorial... We decided to raise it to 9/10.  It was there just not up to
what we wanted and explained in great enough detail.

Quality of Questions: We found that a lot of the questions were discussed
in the lecture and the answers were given to you...while they were good,
we wanted to see some more original thinking. Also, we would like for you
to talk about the united states and make it pertent to the lives of the
students answering them.  It would be nice for the students to know it is
here and let them think about it...a good way is to have them answer a
thinking question about their surroundings.

We hope this eases your minds.  Thanks for bringing it to our attention
that we should have given your project another look...
you know received 5 more points from us...making your total 93/100.

I am sending this to Dr. Glaser (I hope this is correct procedure) and to
Travis Grant who emailed me his group's concerns.

If there is further questions please feel free to ask again! I think this
interaction is very important... sometimes a second look is needed...but
it is also hard to get a group to all decide on a score. People have
different interpretations to the grading and what it is asking...it helps
to look at it from all views.
Thanks
Christy DeLaporte
Group 16-Hydrogen Bomb

-----

 
 

Evaluation by Group 17

(A) Group 17:  AAA
(B) Group 24 - Organophilles
(C) Evaluations

1.  Topic selection - 20
The topic is of interest to many people and is linked to organic
chemistry.  

2. Newspaper and article selection -9
Newspaper was not of the highest quality, but it was published in the past
one year.

3. Quality of editorial comments - 10
Editorial comments are excellent and well throughout.  

4. Organic chemistry content- 10
The key organic chemistry was explained with good detail and background
information.

5. Selection and quality of links-18
The links are of high quality and are helpful in further explaining the
topic.

6. Format, number and types of questions-9
The questions covers a broad range of categories.

7. Quality of questions-9
The quality of the questions are not far-fetched.  They address the
central issues of the site.
8. Overall impression -10
Overall the project was done with good grammar and was also very
informative.  The site was easy to navigate. 
TOTAL POINTS: 95


 
 

Evaluation by Group 18

(A) Group 18:  Polyesters
(B) Group 24 - Organophilles
(C) Evaluations

1.  Topic selection - 19
Good topic selection.  It is relevant, important and clearly linked to
organic chemistry.

2. Newspaper and article selection -10
The article was good, but the writing a little choppy.

3. Quality of editorial comments - 10
Editorial comments are well written and interesting.  

4. Organic chemistry content- 9
Good job on the organic chemistry content.  The key issues are made
clear and structures of important organic compounds are shown.  More
references would be helpful, for example the chapter on aromatic
compounds.

5. Selection and quality of links-19
The links are good and interesting, especially the personal anecdote.
The links to molecular structures worked, but some textural information
about the molecules would have been helpful.

6. Format, number and types of questions-10
Appropriate number and type of questions.

7. Quality of questions-9
Great questions, but some are similar to old test questions.  Some
aspects of the question are difficult to deduce.

8. Overall impression -10
Overall, the project was excellent!  Very well written.

TOTAL POINTS: 96

 
 

Evaluation by Group 19

A)Group 19 Harris Gang
B)Group 24 Organophillics
C)Evaluation
1. Topic Selection-20 points
  The topic is good, because it is of interest to many. Methamphetamine is
one of the more popular drugs currently and many people want to know more
about it. It is also related to organic chemistry, which makes it a
relevant topic for this assignment.
2. Newspaper & Article Selection-7 points
  This article was from the Bangkok Post, so I'm not sure if it is a high
quality newspaper or not. I would assume it is, though. The article was
published within the last year, but was not very exciting. It was hard to
stay interested in it.
3. Quality of the Editorial Comments-10 points
  The editorial comments helped put the article in greater context. The
structures given were great and helped me understand the editorial
comments.
4. Organic Chemistry Content-9 points
  The organic chemistry of methamphetamine was good and the structures
helped a lot. The references could have been more specific as to which
sections of the chapter were most relevant.
5. Selection & Quality of Links-18 points
  The links were very good. They are well embedded in the text and were
useful when reading this news article and the editorial comments.
I understand why they were chosen.
6. Format, Number & Types of Questions-10 points
  There are five questions, which vary by the categories given. The last
is a PSP question as was assigned.
7. Quality of the questions-7 points
  Each question has more than one step to answering it. This makes them
long and confusing. They questions also use many difficult words and it
was kind of hard to piece it all together. They would also take quite a
while to answer.
8. Overall impression-8 points
  This project is very good. There are only a few minor adjustments that I
feel need to be made.

Total-89 points 

 
 

Evaluation by Group 20

(A) Group 20 Wolfe Pack
(B) Group 24 The Organophilics
 (C) Responses to Various Evaluation Categories


(1) Topic Selection: 18 Points (0-20) The topic has a strong relationship
to organic chemistry, but it is less interesting because it is a topic we
have already covered in class.

(2) Newspaper and Article Selection: 10 Points (0-10) The article was in a
creditable news source, and printed during the acceptable time frame.

(3) Quality of the Editorial Comments: 9 Points (0-10)
The editorial is really well written, and the added pictures add emphasis
to the points made by the editorial

(4) Organic Chemistry Content: 10 Points (0-10) The reference section was
complete, and the pertinent molecules were described adequately.

(5) Selection and Quality of the Links: 20 Points (0-20) All the links are
very stable, and relevent to the editorial.  They are also very well
incorporated into the editorial

(6) Format, Number and Types of Questions: 10 Points (0-10) The editorial
contains five questions that vary in format, and the last question is a
PSP question.

(7) Quality of the Questions: 10 Points (0-10) The questions are
reasonable and they address the central idea.

(8) Overall Impression. 9 Points (0-10) The problem set is fit for
publication, with very minor alterations.

Total: 96