> (1) Group Number and Group Name of Evaluators

   Our Group number is 16 and our group name is broken beakers. 

> (2) Group Number and Group Name of Evaluees
>    
The group we evaluated was 21 and their name was the randoms. 
> 
> 
> Visual appeal  10
> 
> Content  9
> 
> WWW Suitability  10
>   
> Relevance to 210  10
> 
> Personal Gain  10
> 
> Total from Peers  49 
> 
> Comments:  This was a very imformative site that had a lot of great
links.
> Good job!!!!  Nice site.  
> 
> 

(1)	17, Catalytic Cretins
(2)	21, The Randoms
(3)	Visual appeal of site: 8
(4)	Content of site: 8
(5)	WWW suitability: 8
(6)	Relevent to chem 210: 9
(7)	Personal gain: 8

Comments:  good graphics and in-depth but seemed to lack focus, easily
browsable

(1)  18, Six String

(2)  21,  The Randoms

(3)  Visual Appeal of the Site:  7 Points
        The web page itself was appealing, but the links weren't as
appealing because there
         weren't many visual aids on the links.

(4)  Content of Site:  9 Points
							The content of the
links was very informational.  There were several links, and still
        links inside the links to branch to more information.

(5)  WWW Suitability:  8 Points
       The site had a lot of information, but most of the information, if
not all, could come
        from a book.

(6)  Relevance to Chem 210:  9 Points
      "Steroids" is an interesting topic.  The project showed the
structure of the molecule 
     and the chemistry involved in the molecule.  The group also made a
good point when 
     they pointed out the relevance in medicine and every day life.

(7)  Personal Gain:  8 Points
      The site contained a lot of information that was interesting and
easy to pick up on.  

1) Group 19
	Brandon Larkin
	Mike Snyder
	Richard Aldenderfer
	Jason Effmann
	Raina Thomas
	Christie Hampton

2) Group 21
	Keith Kleiner
	Sandler, Amy
	Saffaf, Leila
	Winchester, Leslie
	White, Matt
	Wilkinson, Brian

3) Visual Appeal of Site: 7 points
With the exception of the black and white model, the only visual
effects were confined to the actual webpage, not the sites.  More
multimedia in the content of the project would have been nice.

4) Content of Site:  10 points
Much information, at times was too wordy, but all in all, good
presentation.

5) WWW Suitability:  7 points
While information was presented well, we found that some links were simply
to chemical search engines.  More suitable would have been hard facts
about the actual topic, not just providing the method for the viewer to
find.

6) Relevance to Chem 210:  9 points
Steroid information, in regards to chemistry, is taken care of in the
chemistry search database.

7) Personal Gain:  10 points
Much easy to understand info presented.  Information also very practical.
Good site.

1.  Group 20 - psyched
2.  Group 21 - randoms
3.  Visual appeal - score 6
Visual appeal was slightly lacking, but forms and tables provided good
organization.
4.  Content - score 10
Content was excellent.  Perhaps too much for this assignment.
5.  www suitability - score 9.5
Text would be more suitable in other media.  We liked the ability to
search for specific chemicals.
6.  Relevance - score 6
More chemistry, less physiology would make this more relevant to the
class.
7.  Gain - score 9
Total = 41