Peer Assessment of Group 5
C A T E G O R Y G30 G31 G32 G33 --- Average
Topic Selection
(0-20)
20 20 19 20 - 19.75
Newspaper and Article Selection
(0-10)
10 9 9 9 - 9.25
Quality of Editorial Comments
(0-10)
10 10 8 10 - 9.5
Organic Chemistry Content
(0-10)
10 8 8 10 - 9
Selection and Quality of the Links 
(0-20)
16 20 18 19 - 18.25
Format, Number and Types of Questions
(0-10)
10 10 7 9 - 9
Quality of the Questions
(0-10)
9 9 9 10 - 9.25
Overall Impression 
(0-10)
10 9 9 10 - 9.5
TOTAL 95 95 87 97 - 93.5

 
 

Evaluation by Group 30

Group 30's evaluation of Group 5:

(1)  20/20--Great topic.  Everyone should be interested in cancer, and
you threw in steak and beer as well.

(2)  10/10--Best article we've seen so far.

(3)  10/10--Excellent editorial comments.  Might as well be an article
in itself (which would get ten points as well).

(4)  10/10--Very good ochem stuff, especially in the editorial comments.

(5)  16/20--Very good links.  Not "embedded well in the editorial
comments," but the links elsewhere are otherwise good.

(6)  10/10--Good questions, met requirements.

(7)  9/10--Not as much organic chemistry content as we've seen, but
still very thoughtful.

(8)  10/10--This is the best project we've seen.

Total:  95

 
 

Evaluation by Group 31

  Group 5

  Topic Selection:  20--interesting and pertinent, we (mostly) all eat
meat
  Newspaper and Article selection:  9--no date, but good source
  Quality of editorial comments:  10--good, personable
  Organic chemistry content:  8--good content, but it was mostly confined
to the links.  More could have been done with the HAA discussion
  Selection and Quality of links:  20--good unique and interesting links
  Format, #, type of questions: 10--fits the requirements
  Quality of questions:  9--good questions, but where are the answers?
  Overall impression:  9--great article, really interesting.  Good job,
"Benzomatics" (where'd you get the name?).  I need me a steak and a beer.
  Total  95

 
 

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 Review of Group 5 (Benzomatics)


Topic			19  (Neat topic choice, fun)

Article			9  (Good article)

Comments		8   (Nice job, fairly well written)

O. Chem			8   (Ok, connections that can be made were)

Links			18   (Ok, few but good)

Question Format		7   (Good format, but where are the answers?)

Question Quality	9   (Fun, interesting questions)

Overall			9   (Solid job)
___________________________________________________________

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 5: The Benzomatics

(C) Responses to Various Evaluation Categories

(1) Topic Selection: 20 Points (0-20)
The topic is great, relevant to every meat-eater.

(2) Newspaper and Article Selection: 9 Points (0-10)
The article was light-hearted, yet informative and interesting.  However,
we couldnĠt the date of publication, and weĠre unsure about the 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 and organic chemistry. 

(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 explanations. 

(5) Selection and Quality of the Links: 19 Points (0-20)
All the links were good, and the first link was highly amusing.  There
should have been more links pertaining to organic chemistry.

(6) Format, Number and Types of Questions: 9 Points (0-10)
Where are the answers? 

(7) Quality of the Questions: 10 Points (0-10)
Good stuff.

(8) Overall Impression: 10 Points (0-10)
The project was excellent.

Total Score: 97/100