Peer Assessment of Group 11 Peer Assessment of Group 11


Category G6 G7 G8 G9 G10 Average
Visual Appeal 10 9 10 8 7 -
Content 10 9 9 9 10 -
WWW Suitability 9 10 10 10 8 -
Relevance to 210 9 9 9 7 9 -
Personal Gain 9 9 10 10 8 -
TOTAL from Peers 47 46 48 42 42 45
Technical Merit 50+15
TOTAL for GP 110




Evaluation by Group 6
(1) Group 6-Chemical Activity
(2) Group 11-Hot Wings
(3) Visual Appeal of Site: 10
We found the citrus fruit site and 3-D picture very visually appealing.
(4) Content of Site: 10
Information provided by sites very useful and pertinent.
(5) WWW Suitability: 9
Although this site was visually appealing and informative, the information
could be obtained from other sources, but would not be as easily
accessible.
(6) Relevance to Chem 210: 9
Discussion of free radicals relevant to Chem 210.
(7) Personal Gain: 9
We felt the information provided by this Web page increased our health
conciousness.


Evaluation by Group 7
Dr. Glaser-
Here are the evaluations done by Group 7 Chem Tigers.

(1) Group #7 Chem Tigers
(2) Group #11 Hot Wings
(3) 9
(4) 9
(5) 10
(6) 9
(7) 9
Total: 46


Evaluation by Group 8
(1)Group 8  Freak Accident
(2)Group 11 Hot Wings
(3)Visual Appeal of Site:10 points
(4)Content of Site:9 points  
	did not have all required information (search mechanisms)
(5)WWW suitability:10
(6)relevance to chem 210:9 points
	only evidence was picture of molecule, no text explanation
(7)Personal Gain:10 points


Evaluation by Group 9
(1) Group Number and Group Name of Evaluators- 9, The Pie Stars

(2) Group Number and Group Name of Evaluees- 11, Hot Wings

(3) Visual Appeal of Site: 8 points

(4) Content of Site:  9 points (contains a lot of material on your
                      subject)
(5) WWW Suitability:  10 points (Great visuals and info)

(6) Relevance to Chem 210:  7 points (not very relevant)

(7) Personal Gain:  10 points


Evaluation by Group 10
(1) Group 10 WESAYSO Inc.
(2) Group #11 Hot Wings
(3)Visual Appeal:7
The sites were a bit text heavy and needed more visual aids (graphs,
multimedia, etc...)  The only visually appealing sites were not
specifically informative about vitamin C.

(4)Content: 10
Information was bountiful on the selective sites.  Each supplied
detailed explanations about related topics to vitamin C.

(5)Suitability: 8
Not many of the sites were interactive, so most information could hav
eben found in books and magazines.

(6)Relevance:9
It would have been nice to have seen more sites dealing with the
actual"chemistry" of the molecule.

(7)Personal Gain: 8
Not much information was gained from the sites other than what seems to be
common knowledge.