Subject: Group 1 eval of Group 4
MIME-Version: 1.0

(A) Evaluating Unit: Group 1

(B) Evaluation of Group 4

(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: 6 Points (0-10)
Could expand on methods section. What computations were used? 

(4) Format, Number and Types of Questions: 9 Points (0-10)

(5) Quality of the Questions: 17 Points (0-20)
Question 3 is not obvious in the context of the other EAs in the table.

(6) Presentation & Defense: 18 Points (0-20)
Very good knowledge of computational methods and subject. 
A bit of a mistake on the enthalpy of formation of C8H8

(7) Overall Impression. 9 Points (0-10)
Good job. Interesting topic. 

Total 84

Subject:  Result for group 4 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 4: Hamiltonophiles.

(C) Responses to Various Evaluation Categories

(1) Topic and Paper Selection:  12
The structure of COT and derivatives need to be calculated by computional
methods.  This paper was published in a top notch journals in the last
three years.

(2) Synopsis and Identification of Specific Problem: 13
Synopsis is brief, concise and understandable

(3) Computational Section: 6
The computational result was not summarized. 

(4) Format, Number and Types of Questions: 8
The five question covered three categories. 

(5) Quality of the Questions: 17
The quality of questions is good. And question is understandable.

(6) Presentation & Defense: 16
The presentation is understandable

(7) Overall Impression. 8
These questions are useful as assignment to students

Total:   80

The Hueckelberries (3)
The Hamiltonophiles (4)

(1) Topic and Paper Selection: 15
        This was a very good and interesting topic.

(2) Synopsis and Identification of Specific Problem: 9
        Did not identify specific problem in the paper.

(3) Computational Section:  7
        No comments on computation in the paper.

(4)  Format, number, types of questions: 10
        Criteria met.

(5)  Quality of Questions:  17
        We think there could have been better questions asked, for
instance, about the dipiction of the structurs.

(6)  Presentation and Defense:  18.5
       No explaination about the isomerization of C8H7(-), little hard to
follow.

(7)  Overall Impression:  8
        We were not very impressed by the synopsis or the quality of the
questions, but we really enjoyed the topic and the presentation was done
well.

Total score: 84.5

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
************************************************* 

Subject: Peer evaluation of group 4 by group 5
MIME-Version: 1.0


Section 1: 13.5/15
    
Section 2: 14/15
   
Section 3: 6/10
   Did not state what computational methods were used, or what values they
were used to determine. We couldn't work out what data in the table given
was experimental, and what was computed.

Section 4: 8/10
   
Section 5: 17/20
   A very good selection of questions, that were both interesting to
answer, and clarified the underlying concepts of the paper.

Section 6: 16/20
   Leonid presented the defense powerfully, and seemed very informed about
the subject. It was a pity that Lixin did not participate- even in the
question section at the end. 

Section 7: 8/10
   
Total: 82.5/100