>(A)Evaluators
>Group 1: Dissolved in Water  Emma Teuten, Mike Lewis, & Paul Benny
>
>
>(B)Evaluees 
>Group  :JAW   (Group 2)
>
>(C)Responses To Evaluation Categories
>(1)Topic and Paper Selection(0-15)...........................14/15
>(2) Synopsis and Identification of Specific Problem(0-15)....13/15
>(3)Spectroscopy Section(0-10).................................8/10
>(4)Format(0-10) ..............................................9/10
>(5)Quality of the Questions(0-20)............................18/20
>  The questions were well formutaled and helped considerably in
>understanding the host-guest interactions the paper was concerned with. 
>(6)Presentation & Defense(0-20)..............................18/20
>  A great presentation. Well organised and explained very clearly.
>(7)Overall Impression(0-10)...................................9/10
>Total.......................................................89/100

> (A) Group 3: Bible Study Class
> 
> (B) Group 2: JAW
> 
> (C)
> 
>      (1). Topic and Paper Selection: 12 Points
> 
>      (2). Synposis and Identification of Specific Problem:  12 Points
> 
>      (3). Spectroscopy Section:  8 Points
> 
>      (4). Format, Number and Types of Questions: 9 Points
> 
>      (5). Quality of the Questions:  16 Points
> 
>      (6). Presentation and Defense:  16 Points
> 
>      (7). Overall Impression:  8 Points
> 
>  TOTAL POINTS:  81 Points

>b)Group 4,Asithe Abeywardhane/Wen Jian/Jianzheng Shi   (Group 2!!!)
>c)(1)The selected problem met the criteria regarding usage of 2DNMR.15
>  (2)The synopsis is brief and understandable.14.5
>  (3)The spectra well scanned but the informations supplied were
>insufficient to answer the questions.7
>  (4)All the criteria well met.10
>  (5)Questions were clear and addressed to the central issue.They are
well
>understandable and clear.20
>  (6)Presenters were confident and handled the questions
satisfactorily.19
>  (7)The problem is suitable to assign for the class.10
> Total 94.5
>b)Group 5,ZhenCheng/Fang Hu/Lixin Chao
>c)(1)The selected problem met the required criteria.15
>  (2)The synopsis was brief and dealt well.15
>  (3)The spectra could have been scanned better and some more
informations
>needed for the questions.6
>  (4)Questions are not properly specified.7
>  (5)The questions are far fetched and contains fair amount of marginal
>details.17.5
>  (6)The presentation is ok.17.5
>  (7)The problem can be assigned to the class.10.
>  Total 88
>                                                    From 
>                                                 the gang of three
>                                                 Sandeep Rayat
>                                                 Dan Philips
>                                                 Subhabrata Sen

A)  Group 5   Alcohol Protecting Group
     
     B)  Group 2   JAW
     
     C) 
        1)  Topic and Paper Selection:   15
                fulfilled all requirements
     
        2)  Synposis and Identification of Specific Problem:    13
                why are these molecules important?
                explain better why ROESY is better than NOESY
     
        3)  Spectroscopy Section:    7
                spectra could be cleaner and smaller
                captions on spectra and figures would be helpful
     
        4)  Format, Number and Types of Questions:    6
                part II is 4 pages (not 3 as required)
                question 1 should be SCL not ICR
     
        5)  Quality of Questions:    16
                question 4 would have been better to ask for shift of a     
                single sugar (unclear which protons the question spoke of) 
     
        6)  Presentation & Defense:   16
                showing a table from Pretsch for question 2 would have
                been helpful, nice introduction, maybe explain ROESY better
     
        7)  Overall Impression:    7
                overall a good project, just need to understand ROESY       
                better