Peer Assessment of Group 5
Peer Assessment of Group 5
| Category |
Group 1 |
Group 2 |
Group 3 |
Group 4 |
Average |
| Topic & Paper Selection
(0-15) |
13 |
13 |
9 |
15 |
12.5 |
| Synopsis & Identification of
Specific Problem (0-15) |
12 |
13 |
14 |
9 |
12 |
| Computational Section (0-10) |
8 |
7 |
10 |
6 |
7.75 |
| Format, Number and Types of Questions
(0-10) |
8 |
6 |
10 |
10 |
8.5 |
| Quality of the Questions (0-10) |
16 |
16 |
16 |
16 |
16 |
| Presentation & Defense (0-20) |
16 |
17 |
19 |
16 |
17 |
| Overall Impression (0-10) |
8 |
9 |
9 |
8 |
8.5 |
| TOTAL |
81 |
81 |
87 |
81 |
82.5 |
Evaluation by Group 1
Subject: Group 1 eval of Group 5
MIME-Version: 1.0
(A) Evaluating Unit: Group 1
(B) Evaluation of Group 5
(C) Responses to Various Evaluation Categories
(1) Topic and Paper Selection: 13 Points (0-15)
(2) Synopsis and Identification of Specific Problem: 12 Points (0-15)
(3) Computational Section: 8 Points (0-10)
(4) Format, Number and Types of Questions: 8 Points (0-10)
A little long.
(5) Quality of the Questions: 16 Points (0-20)
If it took 3 hours for you to find what WBI was, this is too much work for
us!
(6) Presentation & Defense: 16 Points (0-20)
WBI explanation not clear. Knowledge of calculations could have been
greater. Nice recognition of the contradiction between DFT bond lengths
and conclusions.
(7) Overall Impression. 8 Points (0-10)
Total 81
Evaluation by Group 2
Subject: result for group 5 evaluated by group 2
MIME-Version: 1.0
(A) Unit Number and Unit Name of Evaluating Unit
Group 2: Nitrosamine
(B) Unit Number and Unit Name of Evaluated Unit
Group 5: O-methylation
(C) Responses to Various Evaluation Categories
(1) Topic and Paper Selection: 13
A good topic need computational calculation.
(2) Synopsis and Identification of Specific Problem: 13
The specific problem as clearly defined.
(3) Computational Section: 7
The computational methods was summarized in the introduction parts, not
in this part. The information is sufficient.( 5 tables and 1 graph)
(4) Format, Number and Types of Questions: 6
Page limitation was not observed.
(5) Quality of the Questions: 16
Question 2 is hard to answer with provided information
(6) Presentation & Defense: 17
The presentation was well organized.
(7) Overall Impression. 9
Total 81.
Evaluation by Group 3
The Hueckelberries (3)
O-Methylation (5)
(1) Topic and Paper Selection: 9
We liked the topic, but the paper was not from a top-notched
research journal, seems to have been poorly put together, contains
irrelavant material, and the conclusions don't even match the data.
(2) Synopsis and Identification of Specific Problem: 14
Not bad.
(3) Computational Section: 10
Good, all data was clear and accounted for.
(4) Format, number, types of questions: 10
Criteria met.
(5) Quality of Questions: 16
Questions 4 and 5 were very good, but the others were hard to
answer.
(6) Presentation and Defense: 19
Although it was consistantly interrupted and many things were shot
down, it generated some interesting discussion and I think we all learned
a lot from it. We enjoyed this presentation, good job!
(7) Overall Impression: 9
Not bad.
Total score: 87
Bruce Flint
237 Chemistry Bldg.
University of Missouri-Columbia
Columbia, MO 65211
*************************************************
"What is best in life?"
"To crush your enemies,
see them driven before you,
and to hear the lamentation of the women."
-Conan the Barbarian
*************************************************
Evaluation by Group 4
Subject: group 4 eval of group 5
MIME-Version: 1.0
A. Group 4, the Hamiltonophiles
B. Group 5, O-methylation
C.
1. 15
Very interesting topic.
2. 9
This paper contains quite a lot of terms some of which go
unexplained.
3. 6
Too much data, bad quality of pictures.
4. 10
5. 16
Question 2 seems to be fairly irrelevant, the rest are good.
6. 16
7. 8
Total = 81