Peer Assessment of Group 4
C A T E G O R Y G30 G31 G32 G33 --- Average
Topic Selection
20 18 18 19 - 18.75
Newspaper and Article Selection
10 8 8 9 - 8.75
Quality of Editorial Comments
7 7 5 8 - 6.75
Organic Chemistry Content
9 5 9 9 - 8
Selection and Quality of the Links 
16 10 17 17 - 15
Format, Number and Types of Questions
10 10 8 8 - 9
Quality of the Questions
10 8 7 9 - 8.5
Overall Impression 
10 6 7 8 - 7.75
TOTAL 92 72 79 87 - 82.5


Evaluation by Group 30

Group 30's evaluation of Group 4:

(1)  20/20--Excellent topic. We realize what this category is supposed
to be grading.  The topic is pertinent and of interest to society at
large, not just organic chemists.  This category has nothing to do with
topic, questions, or any grades we've received on this assignment, so
you get 20 points.  Excellent job.

(2)  10/10--The article is recent and from an established newspaper.  It
includes organic chemistry and isn't too long.

(3)  7/10--The editorial comments left a little to be desired.  Good
comments, but nothing we couldn't get from the article.

(4)  9/10--The organic chemistry comments in the article needed a little
more background information.

(5)  16/20--Three of the links were from the same site, and the one for
"nickel" didn't work.  However, there were more links than required,
including some in the questions.

(6)  10/10--Great questions.  Met all requirements.

(7)  10/10--Questions did exactly what they were meant to do.

(8)  10/10--Good project.  Interesting and met all requirements.

Total:  92


Evaluation by Group 31

  Group 4

  Topic Selection:  18--the topic is old
  Newspaper and Article selection:  8--good, current source, but there
must be better articles on such a well known subject like air pollution
(containing more organic content)
  Quality of editorial comments:  7--the comments are very brief and say
very little.  The provide no further information from the article.
  Organic chemistry content:  5--the article barely mentions any organic
content, and it doesn't say anything about reactions or how the compounds
affect health.  Perhaps quality should have been considered over quantity.
  Selection and quality of links:  10--only 5 of the links worked and they
weren't of very high quality.  The final link was good, though.  If the
other links worked, perhaps that would help with the overall quality.
  Format, #, type of questions:  10--fit the requirements
  Quality of questions: 8--the first question asks for really simple
structures (benzene?).  Questions 2 and 4 are great.
  Overall impression:  6--the article was long and contained little
organic content, the comments were brief and uninsightful, and the links
don't work.  The questions redeemed the project.  It has potential but
needs some revisions.
  Total  72 


Evaluation by Group 32

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 Review of Group 4 (Three 

Topic			18  (Acceptable, not very original)

Article			8  (Pretty good)

Comments		5   (Very brief, could be better) 

O. Chem			9   (Solid connections made)

Links			17   (Ok, a lot from vis. center, one broken)

Question Format		8   (Acceptable)

Question Quality	7   (Ok, could be better if answers were given)

Overall			7   (A little more effort would have made it

Total			79


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 4: Three Musketeers

(C) Responses to Various Evaluation Categories

(1) Topic Selection: 19 Points (0-20)
The topic is of great importance, but it has been well discussed.  

(2) Newspaper and Article Selection: 9 Points (0-10)
This article states more statistics than chemistry.    

(3) Quality of the Editorial Comments: 8 Points (0-10)
Short and to the point, but it should be discussed more. 

(4) Organic Chemistry Content: 9 Points (0-10)
More discussion of the connection to chemistry as opposed to just dropping
names is needed. 

(5) Selection and Quality of the Links: 17 Points (0-20)
The Scorecard link was excellent.  However, 7 out of 12 links did not
work.  The ones that did, though, were good.   

(6) Format, Number and Types of Questions: 8 Points (0-10)
The number requirement was fulfilled, but the answers were not given.  The
format was not varied (there were 3 synthesis questions). 

(7) Quality of the Questions: 9 Points (0-10)
Question 1 couldnŐt be answered due to broken links. 

(8) Overall Impression: 8 Points (0-10)
The group put work into this project, but there should be some lots of
adjustments.  Overall, it was fair.

Total Score: 87/100