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