Peer Assessment of Group 8
C A T E G O R Y G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 Average
Topic Selection
20 18 18 (16) 19 18 18.6
Newspaper and Article Selection
9 9 10 9 10 9.6
Quality of Editorial Comments
8 8 7 8 8 7.8
Organic Chemistry Content
9 9 10 (8) 9 10 9.4
Selection and Quality of the Links 
15 17 15 15 16 15.6
Format, Number and Types of Questions
9 10 10 10 10 9.8
Quality of the Questions
8 8 10 (7) 9 10 9
Overall Impression 
8 9 7 8 8 8
TOTAL 86 88 87 (80) 87 90 87.6


Evaluation by Group 1

Subject: Group 1 evaluating Group 8
Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2000 21:58:18 -0500 

1. Topic Selection: 
points received- 20 
The topic was very interesting and was very pertinent in current events.

2. Newspaper and Article Selection:
points received-9
The article was very easy to follow.  However, it did not focus on the
chemistry.  It was primarily about Mark McGuire.

3. Quality of the Editorial Comments:
points received-8
The comments were too long and talked about Mark McGuire too much.

4. Organic Chemistry Content:
points received-9
They provided structures but didn't discuss much chemistry other than

5. Selection and Quality of Links:
points received- 15 
Links were too redundant and the relevance of them was questionable.

6. Format, Number, and Types of Questions:
points received-9
The variety of the questions was very good.

7. Quality of Questions:
points received-8
Question #4 asked to search websites which takes a considerable amount
of time.

8. Overall Impression:
points received-8
This group's efforts were very interesting but not outstanding.


Evaluation by Group 2

(A)  Group 2: Cuba Group
(B)  Group 8: The Underground
(C)1)  Topic Selection: 18 Points
          This topic is interesting to a broad audience.

  2)  Newspaper and Article Selection: 9 Points
           This article is very interesting.  It does a great job of
looking at the social and economic effects of this trend.

  3)  Quality of the Editorial Comments:  8 Points
            The editorial comments were good overall.  They were
interesting and had a captivating opening paragraph.

  4)  Organic Chemistry Content: 9 Points
            The fourth paragraph of editorial comments is really good for
explaining some of the chemistry.

  5)  Selection and Quality of the Links: 17 Points
            Some of the links didn't seem that relevant, and since there
were a lot of them, some could have been excluded.  Some of the links were
very cool.  The links were well-embedded in the comments.

  6)  Format, Number and Types of Questions: 10 Points
            The questions showed good variety, and the PSP question was
very good.

  7)  Quality of the Questions: 8 Points
            The questions were good.  They were understandable and

  8)  Overall Impression: 9 Points
            The project was current and very impressive overall.

TOTAL SCORE: 88 points 


Evaluation by Group 3

(A) Group 3:  Rau Group
(B) Group 8:  The Underground Group
(1) Topic Selection:  16
Too much focus on baseball, not enough on focus, does not appeal to all

(2) Newspaper and Article Selection:  10

(3) Quality of the Editorial Comments:  7
Too much baseball!!  Opinion is evident and strays from the point of the

(4) Organic Chemistry Content:  8
Good information that is presented awkwardly and is hard to follow

(5) Selection and Quality of the Links:  15
Very few about chemistry and do not offer very good content

(6) Format, Number and Types of Questions:  10

(7) Quality of the Questions:  7
Few with chemistry, may take too long to complete, a little repetitive

(8) Overall Impression:  7
Get to the chemistry faster in the editorial, it needs some work

Total points:  80

Dr. Glaser,
    The Rau Group (Group 3) has decided to make the following adjustments
to CSP of The Underground (Group 8)
Criteria 1: Topic Selection
18 pts-
discussion with group 8 offered a greater understanding of their decision
to choose this topic.  Two points off because we still believe that the
organic chemistry does not appeal to a broad range of people, it is the
controversy of a baseball great and his use of a drug that stirs appeal,
not the chemistry and the effects of that drug. 
Criteria 4: Organic Chemistry Content
10 pts-
After reviewing the project, we agree that great organic chemistry
information was written within the editorial.  We had originally taken off
two points because the chemistry came long after a lengthy discussion
about baseball and well into the editorial.  Instead of reducing points at
this criteria, we will leave the 7 pts for the quality of the editorial
comment (criteria 3) to express our opinions concerning the excess
information and the way in which the chemistry was presented (late in the
Criteria 7:  Quality of the Questions
10 pts-
Chemistry was more evident after discussion.  Answers were easy to find
after instruction of how to do so.  Understanding the limitations of the
article's information, we accepted that the variation of questions and
answers would be limited.
Group 8 had asked us to go over their links and make a decision as to
whether or not we would alter this grade.  We decided that we would not,
because several articles we found had to be thrown out because they did
not meet some criteria.  After discussion with the group, some links still
showed no relevance to organic chemistry or helped us to understand the
article in greater context, while others had to be worked with before they
could serve a purpose (particularly the web based companies).  Either
links should have been disregarded or a new article should have been
chosen that lent itself to more quality links. Sorry guys.
Total points: 87
The Rau Group 


Evaluation by Group 4

(A) Group 4:  Three Musketeers

(B) Group 8:  The Underground (formerly known as Don's Group)

(C) Responces to Various Evaluation Categories.

     (1)  Topic Selection:  19 Points (20)
            -If you were alive last year, you knew about the homerun race
and the use of Andro.

     (2)  Newspaper and Article Selection:  9 Points (10)

            -Article is written by the medical staff writer for a daily
newspaper in a large US city (San Fransico)

     (3)  Quality of editoral Comments:  8 Points (10)

            -Into was a little too long talking about Sosa and McGwire

     (4)  Organic Chemistry Content:  9 Points (10)

            -Good background given.  Compounds are clearly stated.

     (5)  Selection and Quality of Links:  15 Points (20)

            -Unecessary links to McGwire and Sosa.  Several links to
company that sell the compouns, but only 1 link about the actual compound
(Chemfinder).  2 links on the effects of Andro, but 1 link was broken.

     (6)  Format, Number, Types of Questions:  10 Points (10)

            -All types of questions displayed.  5 questions total with
last question being a PSP question.

     (7)  Quality of the Questions:  9 Points (10)

            -Good overall questions, addresses the central issues.

     (8)  Overall Impression 8 Points (10)

            -Quality of links could have been a little better.  A little
more work on this will make this a usefull classroom assignment.


Evaluation by Group 5

Topic Selection:  18
  The idea was not very original.  

 Newspaper and Article Selection:  10
  Original and relatively credible.

 Quality of Editorial Comments: 8
   The first two paragraphs seemed to be extraneous
information that really could have been left out.

 Organic Chemistry Content: 10

 Selection and Quality of Links: 16
   There seems to be links that are not all that
relevent to the topic that should be focused on. There
also seem to be a lot of links.

 Format, Number and Types of Questions: 10

 Quality of Questions: 10

 Overall Impression: 8