Peer Assessment of Group 30
C A T E G O R Y G26 G27 G28 G29 - Average
Topic Selection
18 17 19 14 - 17
Newspaper and Article Selection
6 8 9 7 - 7.5
Quality of Editorial Comments
8 7 7 4 - 6.5
Organic Chemistry Content
10 9 10 9 - 9.5
Selection and Quality of the Links 
19 17 18 16 - 17.5
Format, Number and Types of Questions
10 10 10 10 - 10
Quality of the Questions
8 9 9 7 - 8.25
Overall Impression 
9 7 8 6 - 7.5
TOTAL 88 84 91 73 - 84


Evaluation by Group 26

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 21:22:45 -0500 (CDT)
From: Kenneth Boc 
Subject: Peer evaluationof group 30 by group 26

Group 26, the Chemical Brothers:

Group 30, Auf Wiedersehen

!)  Topic Selection: 18/20 pts.
   Good topic selection.  They chose something we studied in class and
related it to a company many are familiar with (Shell).  An important part
of chemistry is the formation of polymers by the different functional

2)  Newspaper and article selection: 6/10 pts.
  Article is current, but it is not from a newspaper.  Rather it is from
the Shell chemical homepage.  

3)  Quality of the Editorial Comments: 8/10 pts.
  There were some grammatical errors and the comments were rather brief.
Overall, they were of pretty good qualtiy.

4)  Organic Chemistry Content: 10/10 pts.
  Alliphatic polymers were explained well through the links provided.
Pertient reference section is complete.  

5)  Selection and Quality of links: 19/20 pts.
  The links satisfy relevance, quality, and information.  We were able to
learn about different polyketones using these links.  In addition, the
links were used well in the editorial comments.  The lins were essential
to understand the content.

6)  Format, number and types of questions: 10/10 pts. 
  A PSP question was provided.  Difficulty of questions varied (good).  

7)  Quality of the questions: 8/10 pts.
  Times spent on making questions could have been increased.  Questions
2,3,and 4 were too objective.

8)  Overall Impression: 9/10 pts.
  Overall the project was good, but more time could have been spent.  This
project would be useful after some minor adjustments.  

Total score:  88/100 pts.

Eine anstandige Aufgabe!


Evaluation by Group 27

A. Group 27:  Kreuter's Circle

B. Group 30:  Auf Wiedersetien


1.  Topic Selection: 17 Points (0-20)
The topic was pretty specific and more engineering in nature, but it did
have a strong relavance to organic chemistry.

2.  Newspaper and Article Selection: 8 Points (0-10)
The article was written and published by the company whose technology it
discusses and consequently it sounds more like a promotion or an
advertisment.  Length and date were good.

3.  Quality of the Editorial Comments: 7 Points (0-10)
The editorial comments didn't really explain the process.  They could
have been a little more in-depth.

4.  Organic Chemistry Content: 9 Points (0-10)
References were good. Little background information or explanation.

5.  Selection and Quality of the Links: 17 Points (0-10)
Most of the links were informative. The gas phase processing link
contained little relevant information.  None of the links help clarify
the process.

6.  Format, Number, and Types of Questions: 10 Points (0-10)
Format, number, and types all good.

7.  Quality of the Questions: 9 Points (0-10)
The questions were relavant, concise, and reasonable.  Question 4 was
too vaque--more like another PSP question.

8.  Overall Impression: 7 Points (0-10)
Needs some work before being published. More information could be

Total Points: 84


Evaluation by Group 28

(A) The Prouty Group #28
(B) Auf Wiedersehen #30

(1) Topic Selection: 19(0-20)
   Good topic- important to Organic Chemistry
(2) Newspaper and Article Selection: 9(0-10)
   Not the most exciting, but still a good article

(3) Quality of the Editorial Comments: 7(0-10)
   The editorial was a little short and not very clear.

(4) Organic Chemistry Content: 10(0-10)
   The article has a very clear link to organic chemistry

(5) Selection and Quality of the Links: 18(0-20)
   The only problem was that the "polymers" link didn't work, but the
   others were quite informative

(6) Format, Number, and Type of Questions: 10(0-10)
    All of the requirements were met
(7) Quality of Questions: 9(0-10)
    The questions were understandable and could be done in a reasonable

(8) Overall Impression: 9(0-10)
    The article was good and could be used for an assignment

Total= 91


Evaluation by Group 29

>Subject: Peer evaluation of group 30 by group 29
>Date: Sun, 09 Apr 2000 14:40:02 CDT
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>1. Topic selection  14 points
>(new way to produce aliphatic polyketones)
>This topic might not interest too many people that aren't directly
>in chemistry.  Strong relation to organic chemistry though.
>2.  Newspaper and article selection  7 points
>This seemed more like an advertisement to boost CARILON than to inform
>public, considering it was published by the company itself.  The article
>drifts away from its main topic to talk about all the other products of
>company.  The article seems like it was written to talk about the
>aspects of the company rather than scientific aspects.  Length was ok.
>of publication was ok.
>3.  Quality of the Editorial comments  4 points
>The two short paragraphs didn't say anything that wasn't already spelled
>in the article.  The grammer in the last sentence made the point very
>to decipher.
>4.  Organic chemistry content  9 points
>The issue of gas phase processing was never made very clear.  The
>information was very pertinent to organic chemistry.  Adequate
>characterization of compounds involved.
>5.  Selection and quality of the links  16 points
>We didn't like that we had to download a plug-in just to read one of the
>links.  The other links were informative.  The "polymers" link didn't
>One of the links came from the same source as the article.  The
>"polyketones" link was especially informative.
>6.  Format/Number/Types of questions  10 points
>There were five questions, the type varied, and the last question was a
>7.  Quality of the questions  7 points
>Most of the questions seemed very easy to answer.  The answer to question
>was a specific polyketone and not a general polyketone like asked for.
>8.  Overall impression  6 points
>The article could be fit for an assignment after adding more detailed
>editorial comments.