Here are the individual evaluations, with scores ranging up to 5 (=excellent). The text is as received, typos and all.

Ch5: The content of this page was impressive. They seemed to
cover all the important relevant topics without over
elaborating. It was an interesting and quick read.
The page itself was very interesting. The diagrams were
also very simple and looked like they were out of a high
school textbook.
Ch5Score: 4
Ch6: This page really does look like it's from a high school
textbook. From the introduction to its simplistically
described explanations and breaking the content of this
page was done very well. I hate when the discussion
dwells to deeply into chemistry, but these authors did
an excellent job of making it interesting. The titles and
sub-headings were also done very well. The images were
interesting and informative, but so have all these other pages.
Ch6Score: 4
Ch7: This page was very informative but over-killed on the images.
They definitely could have cut alot of the out, and possible found
better places to put the ones that are on the page.
Ch7Score: 4
Ch8: Sorry That I did these in two shifts, but I had to stop before
because my roomate had to use the phone.
Ch8Score: 1-5
Ch9: These two had a difficult task. They had to make an already
extremely played subject and make it innovative and interesting.
They did not succeed. Their information was good and
informative, but they did not really spark my curiosity.
I already know pollution is harmful. The page itself was
done alright. The imposrtance of a couple of images was not
stressed or explained in enough detail.
Ch9Score: 3
Ch10: I did not realize the importance of this issue until these
two people decided to undertake this topic. Their information
was excellent and really informed me of the importance of
deforestation and it's almost immediate relevance.
The page was done well, but I believe the pictures were a bit too
big.
Ch10Score: 5
Ch2: This page was extremely informative in addition
to being very easy to look at. It did not try to
impress the viewer but rather focused on the information
as its main purpose. A very good combination for the
project that was assigned.
Ch2Score: 4
Ch3: This was a well done page too. The graphics were
plentiful and interesting. So plentiful that the page
was a very slow load. The content was written in a very
plain english manner making the extremely long page an easy
read.
Ch3Score: 4
Ch4: I liked this page alot. It's jurassic park opening graphic
caught the readers attention right away. The rest of the
graphics were simple but concise and to the point. It was
an easy read although not as interesting as the opening
graphic.
Ch4Score: 4
Ch8: Without a doubt the best page of the bunch.
Ch8Score: 5
Ch11: This page was a bit too simple. It was not interesting
enough in either form or content to keep my attention.
The information was complete but written stylistically or
with enough life.
Ch11Score: 3
Ch12: This page did an excellent job of describing the
geotechnical aspect of earthquakes to a reader who may not
know anything about how they work. The language was
simple and the explanations logical.
The form of the page was good and very thorough in it's
pictures and graphs.
Ch12Score: 4
Ch13: I really liked the format of this page. Having all the
sub-headings as links was a very good idea. It made it
easy for the reader to choose the subjects that were
interesting or relevant and leave the rest.

Ch13Score: 5

Ch3Score: 2

Ch4: This was an interesting page. Some of the charts though were too much. And some of them were too big. I could not really get into the paper because the charts kept pulling me from the important message. I can tell a lot of time was put into this project and it the resource list proves this.

Ch4Score: 3

Ch5: This paper was very well written and informative. With the graphs and the resource I was able to understand the process of producing nuclear energy very clearly. I never thought of nuclear energy as a safe way of energy but this has brought it into my attention. Although this paper had a lot it still was missing that extra something that makes it an outstanding paper.

Ch5Score: 4

Ch6: I know we put a lot of time into this and I think the work proves it.

Ch6Score: 5

Ch7: This paper was awesome. It was well presented and everything was placed correctly. The graphs and pictures help the paper unlike some of the other papers and the paper was well written. The only bad thing I can say is that it takes away form the other papers.

Ch7Score: 5

Ch8: Considering that Luke was the only person to do this paper by himself I applaud his work. The paper was well written and easy to follow. On the other hand, the paper was shorter than all the other ones and not enough sources were used to help make this a better paper. I had little knowledge of this topic before reading this paper and I was shocked by the tons of waste Americans waste each year.

Ch8Score: 4

Ch9: Pollution and Society is a broad topic, and this paper did a good job considering the amount of things they had to cover. The paper was also organized very well and the graphs were used good. But some more color could have been nice to add to the affect like the map of the United States.

Ch9Score: 4

Ch10: This paper could have been better if there were not as many errors. For example there were several grammar mistakes and some spelling errors as well. I know the topic was Deforestation and Society, but the focus was somewhat misdirected. The graphs added to the paper and they used there research well.

Ch10Score: 3

Ch11: The first picture is great way to get my attention. But this paper was short. It lacked some information. It would have been better if they mentioned more volcanoes. The grammar was good though.

Ch11Score: 3

Ch12: This was a very interesting paper. I was outstanding. The grammar was great and they mixed everything well together. I really liked the summary of Earthquake Hazards Survey.

There was really nothing bad about this project.

Ch12Score: 5

Ch13: This was a great paper to end with. It was extremely well written and very well researched. I liked the flood figures they added to the paper. There was nothing missing from it. Some of the facts were really interesting. For example, I never thought that flood water was so dangerous.

Ch13Score: 5

Ch2: Content: I think this page was well done. THe information was easily understood and they got acroos how important the growing population problem is. Each section was labeled clearly and they seemingly covered what was important. Form: THe pictures and charts were very informative. All of the illustrations add greatly to the page. Overall a nice job

Ch2Score: 4

Ch3: Content: The page contained some good information. I think talking a little more about the negatiive affects of water pollution would help in showing how important this problem is. Form: SOme of the pictures toward the end of the page were a little blurry and unclear. Other than that the pictures helped to illustrate what was aid in the paper

Ch3Score: 4

Ch4: Content: I liked the size of the font because it made it easy to read all of the information. THe information was very thorough. It covered all of the important aspects. Form: The charts and graphs showed how clode we are to losing the use of fossil fuels. This helped to emphasize the seriousness of the problem. Good job overall

Ch4Score: 4

Ch5: Content: Good information overall. They could have probably talked a little more about the different uses of nuclear energy and what things are powered by it. Form: One of the early pictures shows that many of the nuclear power plants are in the Midwest and East coast. Why is this? Other than that the page was good

Ch5Score: 4

Ch6: Content: I liked the question and answer session at the beginning of the page. This was a good change from all of the other pages. Good information about what the ozone layer is and how we are affected by it. Form: Good pictures and charts. They helped in explaining some of the information,

Ch6Score: 4

Ch7: Content: Good information throughout the page. I found it particuarly intesting that some animals are contributing to the Greenhouse gas problem by emitting methane. THis is something I never thought could happen. The page also had good information on the other contributers to the greenhouse gas problem. Form: Good use of charts and pictures. The pie graphs showed clearly how carbon dioxide was by far the leading greenhouse gas. Good page

Ch7Score: 4

Ch8: Content: The iinformation was pretty good, but there was not a section of terms at the end of the paper. THis would have been very helpful in the paper. He covered the different types of waste disposal and it's affects well, Form: He could have probably used a few more illustrations to help explain what he wrote.

Ch8Score: 3

Ch9: Content: The information was good but it was also a little bit too scientific. Maybe talking more about evryday problems with pollution would help. Form: The charts were good, but there really weren't that many. Maybe a few pictures of things associated with pollution would help

Ch9Score: 3

Ch10: Content: The page has a lot of good information. I never knew that trees held such an importnat part in society. Form: A lot of the pictures were blurry. THis took away from a pretty good page.

Ch10Score: 4

Ch11: Content: This page had an adequate amount of information. It gave good descriptions of the types of volcanoes and how it can effect us as society. Form: Good pictures. They showed how big and intimidating volcanoes can be. Also the figures were tied into the page well.

Ch11Score: 4

Ch12:

Ch12Score: 1-5

Ch13: Content: This is a very thorough page. It contains all the information I could ever ask for on floods. I had no idea how devastationg floods were to society. Form: The pictures showed the destruction that floods can cause. The charts also helped in showing where they occur and how much damage they do. Great page

Ch13Score: 4

Ch2: I believe that most of the web pages here are excellent. I think that all are either 4 or 5.

This web page is very good. It is complete with the necessary graphs and writing to paint the complete picture of the problems of population growth. Showing the population increase over these past years is effective as well as the projection of what will happen in the future. By looking at the social aspects with children as workers it helps to understand why the population is so large in underdeveloped countries. It appears as if they put in a large amount of time working on it.

Ch2Score: 5

Ch3: This web page is also very good. They show the differences between point and non-point sources. The graphs are effective in showing the cycles of water and in showing the problems with the contamination in the water. The writing is pretty good, but could be a little better. It does look like that they worked hard on it though. The web page does flow well. It has a good form.

Ch3Score: 5

Ch4:

Ch4Score: 1-5

Ch5: This is a good presentation also. I think that the strength of this paper is in the explanation of how nuclear power is generated and in the by-products that are formed from it. It also showed the positives from nuclear energy and how the rest of the world is using it. The nuclear safety section is good as well. The web page is organized in a logical manner so it is pretty easy to read.

Ch5Score: 5

Ch6: This is a little better than the others. The introduction is especially interesting; it really draws the reader in. This group was especially good in explaining the layers of the ozone and exactly what happens in each layer. It is explained on a level that almost all can understand. I also think that is was a plus that they showed how the ozone layer is measured. The socital aspects are insightful with the situation of the bugs spreading. All in all I think that this was probably the best web page I saw.

Ch6Score: 5

Ch7: This is a very good paper. This group probably did the best job of showing the complete picture. This web pages talks about everything in depth from the possible effects of global warming to the governmental action with the kyoto conference. They go into detail in almost to much. This seems to be a little to long. I got bored reading it. They did a lot of work for this paper and they should be rewarded for their work, but it just keeps going on and on. It seems as if they added unnecessary pictures( the air conditioner?) Still, this paper is really complete

Ch7Score: 5

Ch8: This is not on the level of the other ones. He did this by himself so this maybe a major reason for this. It is really short. The topic may have been a little difficult to write on as well. The writing is not as in depth as some others and the graphs are not as effective. Perhaps with a partner this could have been better. I also didn't see much on Waste Diposal in the global sense.

Ch8Score: 3

Ch9: This is also not as good as the rest. The graphes are poor and very boring to look at. There is little color in the web page and it doesn't look like they tried to hard to make it something somebody would want to read. If you step back and look at it you are not inspired to read it. The text seems to drag on and on. It is just and average paper.

Ch9Score: 3

Ch10: This isn't good as some of the others, but on the whole it is okay. I think that the text is a little boring but this one was pretty complete. They give the all of the facts to you so just about anyone can understand the problem. I thought that the strength of this paper was in the Discussion and Conclusion. Pretty good paper over all. You can tell that they did their work.

Ch10Score: 4

Ch11: If you look at this page closely it is really short. The pictures and graphs are good but it seems as if there is a lot of substance missing. There was not a lot said on social effects of Volcanoes. I think that they tried to hurry through is one a little quickly. The graphs are the strength of the paper and not really the work that they did.

Ch11Score: 3

Ch12: This is a very complete paper on Earthquakes. They give a detailed explantation of what earthquakes are and how they are made. The scientific aspects are really detailed and so are the social aspects. I think that this one of the better ones I saw. The discussion is also very complete. You can see that they worked hard on this.

Ch12Score: 5

Ch13: This web page is pretty good. However the pictures and graphs are not placed well. The text seems to go on and on( which is difficult to read) while the graphs and pictures are bunched together. The pictures at the end really seem out of place. They did work hard on it though and it is pretty good so I give them a 4. I think a couple more hours of work though would have made this even a lot better.

Ch13Score: 4

Ch2: Good paper. The first paragraph contains great eye-catching

facts. I like the graphs as well; however I did not

understand the Popuation Distribution Map. The content is

complete and the information is all there. I was particularly

interested in how children are looked at as status symbols

in 3rd-world countries. I also liked how they brought in

the topic of "hot spots" because they are directly connected

to my topic. What is lacking in the paper is a good

conclusion. They do a very thorough discussion in their

concluding paragraph, yet they fail to wrap up the paper.

Ch2Score: 4

Ch3: This paper was good. The pictures were very interesting,

and there was no lack in content. However, the paper did not

flow how I would have liked. The subheadings used did not

serve any purpose. They could have been used better to help

guide the reader. The discussion and conclusion were both

there, but they should not have both been in the same

paragraph.

Ch3Score: 3

Ch4: I had a hard time with this paper. The illustrations used

in this paper are excellent and show alot. However, Dave

and Osman put too many of them in a row which distracts the

reader more so than helping them. Also, in talking about

"how much is left," they fail to explain what a Gb is. I was

unable to understand the graphs because of this.As for the

text, I had a terribly hard time understanding it. It was

very technical and lacked the soft touch that most of the

papers tended to have. For example, when talking about

engines, they are very technical; what is the fractional

distilation process? The paper is complete, but they should

have written it so it is easier to understand.

Ch4Score: 3

Ch5: Very good paper. The pictures were helpful. As for content,

Ilan and Jon spent way too much time explaining nuclear

reactors. They could have summed up how a reactor works much

better. Other than this, the paper was very complete.

Although their subheadings did not specifically help the

reader to distinguish between environmental aspects and

societal aspects of this problem, they did indeed discuss

both. I would have liked to hear way more in terms of

discussion. The conclusion is fine; however the discussion

is almost non-existent.

Ch5Score: 3

Ch6: Great paper. As with most papers, the illustrations were

very interesting. However, what I like about this paper is

the content. First of all, the font which Cary and Joelle

chose for their subheadings is very warming and personal; it

adds personality to the paper. The introduction is very

clever. I love how they used a dialogue to do the intro.

Also, the scientific aspects were very well separated from

the societal aspects. Lastly, their conclusion and summary

are very complete. The discussion really shows what they

think, and the summary sums up the paper nicely.

Ch6Score: 5

Ch7: Very good paper. What I like most about this paper are the

pictures and illustrations. They really add to the paper.

As for content of the paper, there is nothing really to say.

I did a report on the Greenhouse Effect in high school, and

in my opinion, they left nothing out of their report. Also,

they followed the requirements. They separated societal

aspects from environmental aspects. These two showed that

they put alot of effort into this project.

Ch7Score: 5

Ch8: First of all, Luke should have devoted more than a few

sentences to discussing the problem. Secondly, the content

did not follow any type of organizational pattern. It is as

if paragraphs were just thrown anywhere. Also, his focus of

material should have been different. There was too much

discussion on the Fresh Kills incident; whereas there should

have been more devotion to discussing environmental and

societal impact of waste disposal. Lastly, he offered a

strong discussion, but no conclusion or glossary.

Ch8Score: 2

Ch9: Very informative paper. Nobody can say that Marisa and Carl

did not do the research. There is a ton of information on

this topic in their paper. What the paper is lacking,

however, is a better use of subheadings. Subheadings help

the reader organize the paper. Marisa and Carl used very

few subheadings which made the paper harder to follow. Also,

they need more illustrations and pictures to liven up the

paper. They only use a few graphs, and the reader very

got a break from the reading. Overall, the paper was good.

They just need more subheadings and illustrations.

Ch9Score: 4

Ch10: This paper rocks. Everything is great about this paper.

Ch10Score: 10

Ch11: Good paper. The paper is explained in such a way that almost

anyone of any age could understand the content. Also, I

liked alot how they used the What, Why, and Where approach

to explain the environmental aspects of volcanoes. They

also do a great job discussing societal aspects of volcanoes,

and their discussion is very well written.

Ch11Score: 4

Ch12: The organization of this paper was good. They use subheadings

very well and fully covered their topic. They dissed

scientific and societal aspects of earthquakes. However,

the paper was too technical. There were alot of concepts

and words that I did not understand; and many of these words

were not in the glossary. You'd have to be an expert on

volcanoes to understand much of this paper. None the less,

the paper is complete and has good illustrations.

Ch12Score: 4

Ch13: Good paper. I love how you can click on the highlighted

words and see a small clip. The information was all there,

but I had to fish for it. They failed to use any subheadings

to help guide the paper. It was a good paper, but it would

have been stronger if they had used more subheadings.

Ch13Score:4

Ch2:

I think this page is very throurough in its analsysis.

It uses important graphs and charts. The quality of writing is

good. It is clear and concise and takes the reader step by step

through the discussion of population growth's many aspects.

It is very well laid out and easy to look at and read.

Ch2Score: 4

Ch3: This page supplied a lot of information on water pollution.

It covered many areas and described the problem well. I thought

they could have expanded a little more in some areas but generally

it was an interesting paper. The layout was a little confusing

because it there was all kinds of different colors used in the

writing. The pictures were great to use, but I think they should

have been explained in the actual paper instead of having

the long captions underneath.

Ch3Score: 3

Ch4: I think they did a really good job presenting the material.

However, I was overwhelmed by all the graphs and charts that they

used. It was almost too much. The graphs dominated the paper and

I felt the writing didn't. What they had to discuss was thourough but

I wonder what they would have done without the figures they used.

There was good use of the grahical information but at times I

think it dominated the paper.

Ch4Score: 3

Ch5: I think this page was very well done. It was clear and

concise with the information used and it was presentated in

a very organized and neat manner. Although they wasn't alot of expansion

on topics like the nuclear weapons and nuclear safty, I think

they covered other areas sufficiently. The figures they used

really added to their paper and were properly presented and

important to the overall presentation.

Ch5Score: 4

Ch6: The content of this paper was excellent. The detail with which

the explained the ozone layer was very eaxy to understand.

I also like how they set up the paper with the dialogue.

It was well presented and because it was in a different style

was interesting to look at and the figures were used well with

what was discussed.

Ch6Score: 4

Ch7: I liked the layout of the paper. I think all the information

was interesting. The pictures were not evenly distributed

between segments so it got a little choppy at times but I

think overall it was a good paper.

Ch7Score: 3

Ch8: The paper itself presents the basic information well. However there

is no real detail spent in the different areas he discusses.

The graphs I think may be depended on a little too much to present the

information instead of writing the detail. But still I do think

for one person a lot is covered and it is a clean page.

Ch8Score: 3

Ch9:

Ch9Score: 1-5

Ch10: I think the information presented was really interesting

and well-written. Some graphs were too big to read or understand

but I think the information supplied made up for the format of

the paper. I thought also that it covered the different topics in

deforestation well and brought all the aspects together in a

clear manner.

Ch10Score: 4

Ch11: There was a good portion of information presented in the paper.

It was straight-forward and answered basic questions on volcanoes.

I think the figures were good and added to their points made ,

some were hard to read which took a way from the main ideas.

I did like the approach they took to discussing the topic.

Ch11Score: 4

Ch2: The topic is covered well...the work shows in depth research..the graphs and figures add to the web site..they are not useless space takers..colors look nice..good organization overall..

Ch2Score: 5

Ch3: I really like te format of this page..

the pictures and divided sections, headings..

colors of page look nice..

For such a broad topic it was covered fairly extensively, but it is related together very nicely..Good web site.

Ch3Score: 5

Ch4: The topic is covered well..

content: good..well written..style is a little different..

the graphs are rather large..sometimes you can't see the whole figure without scrolling down..i think that takes away some of the purpose of the figures..i like the final product..

Ch4Score: 4

Ch5: This web site is really simple, clear, and easy to read and enjoy..

content: covered both sides of the nuclear debate..good job..i don't agree with the conclusion, but that doesn't really matter..

I really like the introductory picture, I think it fits the theme very nicely..

informative web site..put together very well..

Ch5Score: 5

Ch6: The dialogue at the beginning is a different approach..but it works in nicely..interesting view..

content: good..covered topic well..the paper answered many commonly asked questions about the ozone layer..

the graphs are good..overall very good web site..

Ch6Score: 5

Ch7: Good introduction, development of topic, and the effects and different causes of global warming..

Graphs and figures are relevant and fit nicely into web site..

I really like the pictures of the refridgerator and air conditioner..nice touch..

visually pleasing web site..and informative

Ch7Score: 5

Ch8: I found the topic of this web site fascinating..i liked the statistics on human disposal..how much we each contribute to the problem..

visuals: easy to read good colors, graphs and figures fit well into page, unobtrusive..

adequate length for topic at hand..

Ch8Score: 5

Ch9: I like that they covered both water and air pollution..even though it seems like it was a lot to cover..

I think it needed a few more relevant pictures or something..map of water sheds is a good addition..too many of the tables, they are informative, but not that visually great...

did cover topic well.

Ch9Score: 4

Ch10: Content: covered all causes and effects..shows in depth research..well written..

I really think that the graphs are too big..one is even blurry..maybe thats just my computer..but all the other images were clear..overall good web site.

Ch10Score: 4

Ch11:

Ch11Score: 1-5

Ch12: I really like the way the tables fit into the web site..they just blend in..don't disrupt the flow of the writing..

Good photos of damge done by earthquakes..

The color map at the beginning is really nice and easy to understand..

Content: topic extremely well researched.. covered every aspect.

Ch12Score: 5

Ch13: I don't really like the highlighting of defintion words..I think it disrupts the flow of the paper..but it does draw attention to key words..and it demonstrates the quality of research on this web site..the bibliography is absolutely amazing..the topic is obviously well covered..the figures, maps are very helpful.

Ch13Score: 5

Ch2: A well written page, covering a vast scope of information relevant to the population growth problem.

It more or less answeered my questions I had in my mind, and gave information I found rather interesting.

The discussion section was well thought out; there are no easy answers, and this page provided a good number of options

Ch2Score: 4

Ch3: The usage of graphics was the best part of this paper. All images and diagrams used were useful.

The only problem with some of the diagrams is that the explanation was a little thin in my opinion, as in the case of the raw sewage diagram.

Societal aspect was covered more than adequately, though I feel that a more scientific angle would help this page.

Ch3Score: 3

Ch4: The page looked fine when I made it out on my IFS space, though it seems that some of the

image breaks and justification markers went out of line. Other than that, I feel that the

scientific aspect was well covered, and provided enough graphics for support.

Societal aspect was covered well also, though with less substance and high reliance on graphs.

Ch4Score: 4

Ch5: There was a little scientific information regarding nuclear reactors and the physics surrounding the subject,

though a more substance here would help clarify exactly how reactors work. I feel that the negative impact on society,

although mentioned, was severly downplayed. Nuclear threat has shaped the thinking of the world, especially the US since

the 1950's. Nuclear winter and bomb shelters were a way of life. Luckily, the bomb shelters never were used, but the scare still

remains with us today. Using Nuclear power for an energy source is a benefit, but some issues were not discussed thouroughly.

This source is limited to the supply of Uranium available. When this runs out, where does this put us? Fusion would be the way to

gain support for nuclear power. other questions of mine also were inadequately discussed, I feel that a stronger argument could be made here.

Ch5Score: 2

Ch6: Presented in an interesting manner, covering all essential information. Explained arguments and ideas well.

Societal impact was the most interesting part of this page, probably because it was the part I least knew about.

Graphics were used adventatiously.

Ch6Score: 4

Ch7: Though closely related to Ozone Layer information, this page covered it's topic well with enough overlap to show relevance.

Well written, though some data seems to be left out. I remember seeing data on how there is a natural temperature fluctuation

in the earth as the ice ages came and went. This data, if possible, should have been at least acnowledged. Other than that, well argued and

informative.

Ch7Score: 3

Ch8: This page was a little brief and could have covered more material relevant to the topic.

What was written was well represented in graphics and a fairly solid argument.

Background information was adequate, though could have been expanded.

Ch8Score: 3

Ch9: A very general topic, though I felt that it was okay in the sense that it helped bind together the

previous topics. The discussion and possible solutions were well thought out though.

Grapics were limited, mainly tables that were useful.

Ch9Score: 3

Ch10: Nicely done page, The societal and scientific aspect were intermingled, though I do not feel this took away from the

impact of the paper. If at anything at all, I think it aided the flow and interrelation between the two.

Discussion proved that a lot of thought went into finding answers to the problem.

Ch10Score: 4

Ch11: Could have used additional information in societal and a bit more in scientific. Discussion well thought out.

Graphics were excellent and aided the page immensely.

Ch11Score: 4

Ch12: Excellent page. A great deal of time spent in research and putting it together.

Both aspects covered well and Many interesting graphics were used.

Ch12Score: 5

Ch13: Extensive Graphics used, lots of information as well. Reference section could have been slightly condensed, seems silly to put so many of the same general website up.

format needs a little work to make information clearer. Labels would improve the paper greatly.

Ch13Score: 4

Ch2: Don’t show stats about the year 3400, that is too much extrapolation. It is hard for me to comprehend how far away the year 3400 is. Good graph on world population growth through history and good explanation of why we have population growth problems. It is interesting to know that women’s menstration has increased over the last 200 years. But why has this occurred? At what population will the Earth no longer be able to support all of us? Is it moral to tell people to not have kids?

Ch2Score: 5

Ch3: What is the major cause of water pollution, point or nonpoint sources?

I thinkyou had good diagrams about how waste is treated, showing the cycle the water goes through.

I didn’t know that the water I drink was once in the sewers and actually in my own toilet! Good that you included things we can do to help combat water pollution.

Ch3Score: 4

Ch4: Good graphs explaining how much of each fossil fuel, they were the strength of the paper. You info clearly shows that fossil fuels are running out and there must be an alternative way of producing energy. The beginning with engine combustion seemed to be a little excessive. How many are killed in present day from pollution in the air? That was also a good chart describing how different animals and humans are effected by an oil spill

Ch4Score: 5

Ch5: How do you expect to convince the public and politicians that nuclear fission is the best way to produce energy? If it truly is the best way, there should be an easy way to promote it. What would be a good plan? You recognize the potential problems of nuclear warfare, but how can we regulate it? You have a good scientific description of how the process actually works, nuclear fission that is. What is the difference for humans if gases emitted stay in the atmosphere forever or if radioactive wastes last only thousands of years. Either way, humans wont be around. That is a weak argument.

Ch5Score: 3

Ch6: The conversation in the beginning is good to show people’s ignorance of the problem. Excellent graphs and description of the scientific details of ozone depletion. I learned a lot about Antarctica, most of details are left out when you see it on the news or other tv programs. Good coverage of human health effects. If there is debate over the health issues, how many credible scientists believe what side of the argument?

Ch6Score: 5

Ch7: very nice

Ch7Score: 1-5

Ch8: If modern incinerators destroy 99.9% of waste, does that mean that they don’t hurt the environment? How would pumping wastes in the wells cause explosion and earthquakes? You say that twice in the same paragraph that Fresh Kills landfill generates 26,000 tons and 13,000 tons of waste. Which one is it? In what industries is recycling more expensive and more efficient? Your solution is not credible. How many people do you know that are willing to pay more for recyclable goods? Not many.

Ch8Score: 3

Ch9: Good chart showing exactly how much of each gas is in the atmosphere. I didn’t know methane oxidizes into carbon monoxide - good scientific data. This paper keeps mentioning how humans don’t understand the effects of this pollution, such as greenhouse effect, but you fail to mention exactly what the societal effects are. Greenhouse gases have nothing to do with ozone layer. Include more social aspects

Ch9Score: 3

Ch10: Good graph of deforestation, but text key is a little blurry

Good explanation of why deforestation is occuring

And also good facts about how much is needed, for example, mcdonalds

Again the graph on erosion is blurry

You do a good job of explaining the effects of deforestation

But what are some solutions for stopping the amount of deforestation that occurs

Ch10Score: 4

Ch11: Good explanation of why volcanoes occur and good description of shield volcanoes. What other types of volcanoes are there? I liked the diagrams to show where they take place and to show the plate movement. Do you have any charts or graphs that have statistics? What is Geothermal Power and how does it benefit society-explain. Water vapor can be considered harmful now because it contributes to the greenhouse effect. How can we limit the hazards of volcanoes?

Ch11Score: 4

Ch12:

Good explanation about scientific effects and good referencing throughout the paper. Can a quake occur where there are no plates boundaries? Good Expanation and diagram of Tsunami. Interesting charts on different scales of how strong earthquakes are. Also good explanation of s/p wave aspect I had trouble reading the chart of "relationship between adaoption of precautionarey measures and intensity of experience" You should include captions on all pictures and charts and graph as Ben stated in class!

Ch12Score: 4

Ch13: I didn’t realize that floods could cause so much damage> I think it is because they don’t effect me, so I don’t pay as much attentions to them. I like how you have integrated links to lower spots in your page. Good explanation of river flood, flash flood, and coastal floods. Could a flood occur in a lake or a pond? Good explanation of the five stages of floods. It is good that you talked about the solutions to minimize damage caused by floods, because most groups didn’t do that. You need to include captions for the last few diagrams.

Ch13Score: 5

Ch3: NICE BALANCE BETWEEN GRAPHICS AND TEXT-PICTURES MADE IT MORE INTERESTING.

I EXPECTED PERHAPS FOR THEM TO TOUCH UPON WATER AS A SOURCE

OF ENERGY.(HYDROPOWER) BUT THEY FOCUSED ONLY ON POLLUTION.

THEY DIDN'T INCLUDE ANY ADVICE ON WHAT THE WORLD POPULATION

AS A WHOLE AND ALSO INDIVIDUALS CAN DO TO REDUCE WATER POLLUTION.

THERE WERE MANY MISTAKES IN THE TEXT.

Ch3Score: 3

Ch4: CONCENTRATED TOO MUCH ON OIL WITHOUT ENOUGH ON OTHERS LIKE

NATURAL GAS, ETC. THEY DIDN'T NEED TO GO INTO DETAIL ON

ENGINES. (UNNECESSARY)

DEFINATELY NEEDED MORE INFORMATION ON OTHER FOSSIL FUELS.

Ch4Score: 3

Ch5: GOOD PAPER-VERY INFORMATIVE ON ALL ASPECTS OF NUCLEAR

ENERGY. THEY GIVE TOO MANY BENEFITS TO NUCLEAR ENERGY

AND IT DEFINATELY RESULTED IN AN OPINIONATED AND BIASED

PAPER. VERY WELL-WRITTEN.

Ch5Score: 4

Ch6: CREATIVE, INFORMATIVE, WELL-WRITTEN. IN MY OPINION, THE PAPER

DIDN'T LACK ANYTHING. VERY WELL DONE!

Ch6Score: 5

Ch7: ANOTHER EXCELLENT PAPER. DEFINITELY OBVIOUS THAT A LOT OF

EFFORT WAS PUT INTO IT BECAUSE THEY SPENT TIME RESEARCHING

ALTERNATIVE SOURCES OF ENERGY-NICE TOUCH.

THE PICTURES WERE INTERESTING AND RELEVANT AND IT WAS OVERALL

VERY INFORMATIVE . I DON'T THINK IT WAS MISSING ANYTHING.

Ch7Score: 5

Ch8: THIS PAPER GAVE A BROAD OVERVIEW-NOT VERY DETAILED.

DIDN'T ANSWER THE QUESTIONS:

WHAT CAN/SHOULD WE DO?

WHAT ALTERNATIVE WAYS ARE THERE TO TAKE CARE OF TRASH OR NOT

PRODUCE AS MUCH?

THEY DIDN'T GLOBALIZE THE ISSUE VERY WELL.

OVERALL, VERY BROAD-NOT VERY MUCH INSIGHT.

Ch8Score: 3

Ch9: GOOD DETAILED JOB WITH AIR AND WATER. PERHAPS THEY

COULD HAVE TOUCHED UPON OTHER FORMS OF POLLUTION LIKE

GARBAGE, PESTICIDES, ETC.

WELL-WRITTEN AND VERY INFORMATIVE.

Ch9Score: 4

Ch10: VERY INFORMATIVE. GREAT DESCRIPTION OF THE EFFECTS OF

DEFORESTATION. I DIDN'T FEEL LIKE THE PAPER FLOWED VERY

SMOOTHLY, THE READING WAS "CHOPPY." -NOT SUPERBLY WELL-WRITTEN.

Ch10Score: 4

Ch11: THE PAPER WAS NOT OUTLINED WELL. EVERYTHING WAS CRUNCHED TOGETHER

IN A PAPER THAT DIDN'T TURN OUT VERY ORGANIZED.

IT GAVE A BROAD OVERVIEW WITHOUT MUCH DETAIL AND INSIGHT

ABOUT VOLCANOES. IT DEFINATELY LACKED IN THE SCIENTIFIC

ASPECT.THE GLOSSARY WAS VERY INCOMPLETE ALSO.

Ch11Score: 2/3

Ch12: COVERED ALL ASPECTS OF AN EARTHQUAKE NICELY.

I THOUGHT IT WAS A GOOD IDEA TO INCLUDE THE ACTUAL CASE STUDY OF THE ALASKA

EARTHQUAKE AND TO GIVE FACTS ABOUT IT- THIS MADE IT MORE "REAL"

THE DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION WAS NOT COMPLETELY THOROUGH, IT

LACKED A BIT OF OPINION/INSIGHT/ SUGGESTIONS ON WHAT AND HOW

THE POPULATION SHOULD TREAT EARTHQUAKES.

Ch12Score: 4

Ch13: VERY DIFFICULT TO READ AND UNDERSTAND. THE PAPER HAD A LOT OF

IDEAS, VOCABULARY WORDS THAT SEEMED THROWN TOGETHER. ALTHOUGH

IT WAS VERY THOROUGH IN COVERING ALL ASPECTS OF A FLOOD,

IT WASN'T OUTLINED VERY WELL. THERE WERE SOME WORDS IN THE

GLOSSARY (WHICH WAS DEFINITELY COMPLETE) THAT WERE NOT DEFINED

THE PAPER HAD NICE MAPS, PICTURES AND GRAPHICS THOUGH.

Ch13Score: ¾

Ch2: Very well done. You give a very good description of all the needed information but at the same time it isn't too in depth to be confusing. A very thorough job is done discussing the societal effects of over-population. I never really considered there to be a direct relationship between population growth and global warming but you make it clear that there is. Your graphs/charts/pictures are very appropriate and help get your points across. The only thing I would have done differently is make your major section changes stand out more (like from scientific to society). But other than that it's very well done.

Ch2Score: 4.5

Ch3: You do a very good job of covering the topic of water pollution, however there is more to the topic of water than just water pollution. Water is the source of life for the majority of living organisms… you say that in your paper but then you jump to how pollution harms them, but what about how "normal" water gives them life? You do an excellent job talking about the scientific aspects but where is your discussion? It seems as though your conclusion is actually your discussion, which is fine but then it should be labeled appropriately.

Ch3Score: 3.5

Ch4: . I like the way you start of in the beginning with your intro. and scientific aspects, however as the paper progresses I feel that it gets too involved in the small things and loses a sense of the main topic, fossil fuels. I'm confused by the in depth look at how engines work, yes engines use fuel to work but why do we need to understand how they operate? Also your graphs are so big that one loses the sense of continuos reading to scroll down a few pages before the text resumes. Your graphs help you get your points across but they take away from your words, if they were smaller they would help get your point across without detracting from the paper.

Ch4Score: 4

Ch5: I was impressed with how you covered the actual process that occurs inside a nuclear reactor is such a clear, short manner. One understands what you are saying without having to read page after page about neutrons floating around and how they react with this and that. You pretty much keep that style the whole paper… you cover the major topics well but you don't go in to deep to make it boring to read. The pictures work well for your paper and over-all a job well done

Ch5Score: 4.5

Ch6: Great job. You cover everything in depth but at the same time you don't go that extra step to confusion. I like the little dialogue at the beginning, I'm not exactly sure if it helps get your point of education across but it does bring the reader in, which is the hardest part. I like your headings, they aren't your basic "science" then "society" they have a little punch to them which adds some spice to the paper (not much but enough to make me happy). Your charts work well.

Ch6Score: 4.5

Ch7: Your information is clear and concise. You give a general background in many areas (different types of greenhouse gases and the various alternative energy sources) and at the same time go into enough depth so that the reader still is informed of the major points. Although I like your charts and pictures I feel as though you went a little overboard and there are actually too many random pictures or cows, cars, air conditioners… the fact that you group them together breaks up the flow of the reading, this is turn slightly detracts from what you are trying to say

Ch7Score: 4

Ch8: You did a really good job describing the different types of disposal areas and how they operate (landfills, deep wells...) For the most part your paper is short and sweet; you say want needs to be said then move on. This is fine except for the fact that you don't use any transitions. A sentence or two at the beginning of a new section would help the paper flow better. But other than that, good job and a good choice of images.

Ch8Score: 4

Ch9:

Ch9Score: 1-5

Ch10: Great job, right from the start your writing styles is very captivating and this pulls the reader in. You make the not-so-greatly-interesting topic of deforestation actually almost pleasing to read about. You say what needs to be said about a given area, then flow right into the next area. The only thing that could have made it better was maybe a few more images, maybe some pictures of rainforests or something, but the actual paper part was great.

Ch10Score: 4.5

Ch11: Although what you have to say is fine I wasn't too crazy about your "what? why? where?" set up. It works, however I feel you probably could have come up with slightly more complex headings. Some of your descriptions go quite in depth and become hard to understand (like in your description of magma… there are a lot of uncommon words back to back, which can cause some confusion.) However I did like your little syrup analogy, it was funny and actually worked.

Ch11Score: 4

Ch12: You do a great job explaining in all aspects of your paper. When describing how earthquakes are formed you're very thorough in your description but at the same time very clear, which makes it easy to understand what is actually going on. This holds true for the rest of the paper as well. This style tends to drag on towards the end but that is pretty much unavoidable. Your images really help get your points across, they help get your points across which is what images should be used for. Good job

Ch12Score: 4

Ch13: Although making links to the bottom of the page for definitions seems as though it would be a clever idea I don't think it helps you're paper out. I personally like to 'click' so seeing something to click on takes my attention away from what you're writing about. The change in color for the links also is a distraction and this also takes away from your main purpose, talking about floods. Although what you talk about is well written and understandable I feel as though your organization tends to be a little jumpy, a sentence every once in a while to tie things together would help solve this. Over all it is well done, I just feel that those few changes would make it that much more effective

Ch13Score: 3.5

Ch2: I thought this paper was very clear and well organized.

The group had a good amount of pictures. I liked the way

they did their captions. In addition, I thought it was good

that they bolded their key-words. Overall, their paper was

was very informative.

Ch2Score: 4

Ch3: I thought that this site was very well put together. They

encorporated many graphs and pictures that worked well with

the information. The heading caught my attention immediately

The paper also read very well.

Ch3Score: 5

Ch4: I thought that their information was very extensive. They

covered both the social and scientic aspects very well. \

For the most part, their pictures were very good, but I

thought that some of the larger pictures and charts took

from the paper. I was unable to view some of them in their

entirety without having to scroll down, which I found

distracting.

Ch4Score: 4

Ch6: The information was very thorough. They had many sources

for their bibliography, which lended to their vast supply

of information. I liked their headings. The only problem

I had with it was that towards the end they didn't have

many pictures. I thought that the beginning flowed better

because of the pictures.

Ch6Score: 4

Ch7: I liked the fact that they used real life pictures, although

they did use too many. They wrote a very clear and

thoughtout report. Overall, they did a very good job.

Ch7Score: 5

Ch8: I thought that there was a good balence between pictures and

text. However, I thought that the information was not as

thorough as some of the other sites. I think that this lent

to its curtness.

Ch8Score: 3

Ch9: I thought that they had too much information on the scientific

aspect of pollution and not enough on the social aspect.

In addition, I found that there wasn't any color which made

their site bland. It seemed as if all of the diagrams came

from the same source. I think that they should have found

more pictures to spice up their site.

Ch9Score: 3

Ch10: I think that it was clear and to the point. I thought they

could have used better pictures (especially the graph that

I couldn't read). They also could have done a better job

with the layout of the project.

Ch10Score: 4

Ch11: Very informative. They covered all aspects of volcanoes.

I enjoyed their pictures,especially the photographs. I also

like their heading which grabbed my attention. Overall, I

was very impressed.

Ch11Score: 5

Ch12: They had a good variety of pictures and compelling statistics

The information was very thorough and well organized. It

was clear and very interesting.

Ch12Score: 5

Ch13: I thought this was a great site. I liked the way they

separated their key-words from the rest of the text. They

had a good variety of pictues. I especially liked the

photograhs. Their was one graph that was too large, which

was a little distracting. Their sources were extremely

abondant.

Ch13Score: 5

Ch2: Population Growth and Society

Content: Overall, your content was very thorough.

I thought the "lifeboat ethics" metaphor was very

interesting and helped the reader to understand.

You also did a nice job of explaining the effects

of population growth on the environment, that was

interesting. Also, the discussion of the several

different solutions to the problem (i.e. economic

development, birth control, foreign aid) was good.

However, one suggestion I have is to work on your

conclusion a little bit. It seems somewhat repetitive.

But overall, the content was great - one of the best!

Format: Nice placement of the figures in appropriate

places, and the captions were good. The paper had

vibrant use of colors in the subtitles, and most

paragraphs were short enough to keep the reader focused

and not bored. Finally, I would suggest cleaning up a few

of the figures. Some were hard to see (i.e. population

distribution map) which looked like it was scanned from

a bad copy or something. But overall, great style.

Overall score: 5

Ch2Score: 5

Ch3: Water and Society

Content: Overall, your content was very good. You will

find specifics following. First of all, you two had a

nice introduction. The information given and the word

structure make the problem seem like a true concern for

society. Additionally, your explanation of point/non-point

sources was clear and contained great examples. Your

conclusion also contained good suggestions for actions

that society can take. I do have a few suggestions,

however. First of all, it would be beneficial if you

could explain additional forms of water pollution more

(i.e. radioactive substances and heat). I feel that was

a little too brief. The only other suggestion I have is

to fix two types under "Causes of Pollution" heading. The

first typo, should be OF fish and not OR fish. Secondly,

"respirationbecomes" needs a space between it.

Style: The globe picture used for your title page was

nice, and you used effective pictures with good captions

throughout the paper. The only suggestion I have is to

make sure all of your captions are centered under the

pictures. Sometimes, the captions were half right

justified and half centered, which looks a little awkward.

(Refer to Wastewater Treatment picture for an example.)

Overall score: 4

Ch3Score: 4

Ch4: Fossil Fuels and Society

Content: Please find following a list of the many pros

and some cons of your content. You clarified well what

an oil reservoir is. Also, the summary stating "the main

point…all fossil fuels are made of hydrocarbons" truly

helped the reader understand the main point. Additionally,

the introduction to drilling methods by stating that

setting oil on fire in your washing machine won't get

your clothes clean was very clever and catches the reader's

attention. There were, however, a few areas that need

clarification. First of all, under the subheading

Drilling, the paragraph starting with "Early oil explorers"

is very confusing and slightly awkward in the writing

style. You may want to consider re-writing it. In

addition, you should explain the difference between

Butane and C10 under the subheading Fuel Type and Engines.

Finally, in the conclusion, I would suggest changing the

"make friends with those we really hate" part. I understand

the point that is trying to be made, but you could possibly

re-write the sentence so it doesn't sound so elementary.

Nice job on content, with exception of the suggestions!

Style: The most impressive part of your paper as far

as style was the Jurassic Park type title which included

the title of your paper. That was excellent. Also, the

font size and style was easy to read and appealing to the

eye. Furthermore, the use of bulleted lists throughout

the paper helped break the paper up and keep the reader

interested. The only suggestion regarding style is to

alphabetize your glossary. Overall, the style was very

well done.

Overall Score: 3

Ch4Score: 3

Ch5: Nuclear Energy and Society

Content: I only have a few brief comments about your

paper. Starting off, the introduction of your paper was

very nice and proved to be effective in leading the reader

into the body of the paper. However, throughout your paper,

there were a few areas that seemed to be very technical

and confusing. Perhaps if you could put these in layman's

terms, it would help the reader. Just remember, that most

of your readers don't know too much about nuclear energy.

Finally, it was wise to note not only the benefits of

nuclear energy, but also the drawbacks. This provides

an un-biased view to the reader. Nice job.

Format: The figures you used were very clear and seemed

to fit well in the paper - it was evident that they were

not just "thrown in" the paper. However, you should put

captions under all of your pictures so that the reader can

just take a quick glance if needed.

Overall Score: 3

Ch5Score: 3

Ch7: Greenhouse Gases and Society

Content: I have a few positive points to note about

your paper. First of all, I thought the introduction

was very well written and provides a view of important

points of your paper. Second of all, instead of just

giving statistical data and leaving it at that, you two

did a good job of discussing the data and explaining what

it meant. Finally, it was great that you proposed a

number of solutions to Greenhouse Gas related problems,

not just one thoughtless solution. Overall, your content

was thorough, but I found a few errors as far as writing

style goes in various areas of the paper.

Format: The photographs and graphics you used were

colorful and appealing to the reader's eyes. The style

and set up of your paper looked good!

Overall score: 4

Ch7Score: 4

Ch8: Waste and Society

Content: Your explanation of the different types of waste

was easy to understand and an important point. One area

that I wonder about in the paper is your description of

the health effects. Are there more health effects? Could

you possibly go into more detail? Overall, your paper was

good, but it seemed very brief. I think more could have

been added. This could just be since you were alone, but

I feel more could be written.

Style: I would suggest adding a glossary, since this

was one of the requirements. Also, more figures would

have added to the paper

Overall Score: 2.5

Ch8Score: 2.5

Ch9: Content: Overall, the content was sufficient and the

paper was extremely organized. You provided a good

description of the effects of pollution relating it to

the ozone layer. However, I did find one problem with

the data. You stated that ozone (O3) is not harmful to

humans. However, in my research, I found that ground

level ozone in many areas of the country causes serious

health and respiratory problems when it rises to a certain

level. Thus, you may want to clarify that in your paper,

because your argument sounds likes ground level ozone is

not harmful to humans, period. (Okay, so it's obvious

who is doing this evaluation!) On a more positive note,

you provided a nice summary of what we can do to

combat/help the pollution problem, and provided a good

description of societal effects of water pollution. One

last suggestion in regards to the writing style: I did

find many places that needed commas, but that may just be

difference in writing styles. Overall, nice job on content.

Style: I have a couple of suggestions as far as style goes.

First of all, to stay consistent, you may want to consider

centering the pictures with "Table 4-3" and "Table 12-5."

Additionally, it may be effective to show pictures of,

for example, animals covered in oil after an oil spill,

exhibiting water pollution. Pictures like this can really

have an effect on people. Other than that, the style was

nice, and the word-wrap around your pictures looked good.

Nice job on the paper!

Overall Score: 3.5

Ch9Score: 3.5

Ch10: Deforestation and Society

Content: There were many positive aspects of the content

of your paper, but I also have a few suggestions. Starting

first with the positives, I felt that your introduction was e

xcellent, well written, and attention grabbing. In addition,

the subtitle "Why Trees Matter" is very clever and the

explanation of the importance of the rainforest is thorough

and convincing. Also, you provided effective coverage of

who contributes to deforestation (i.e. farmers, modern

industry, cattle grazing, and other causes). I felt that

in the subjects covered, the content of your paper was

good, but the paper seemed a bit short. Were there more

aspects of deforestation that could have been covered?

Style: I would suggest using a bit more color throughout

the paper, perhaps in the subtitles. Additionally, the

graphic under "Erosion" is blurry. Is there a way you could

clarify that? Finally, I would suggest centering the

graphic "Event Deforestation." Other than these

suggestions, the style is nice.

Overall Score: 3

Ch10Score: 3

Ch11: Volcanoes and Society

Content: The analogy that relates humans to volcanoes was

a nice touch in the introduction.

Furthermore, you provided a good explanation of why

volcanoes erupt. This is a question wondered by many.

Another positive aspect of your paper was the notation

of how volcanoes provide benefits to society, not just

trauma. Many people are not aware of that. I do have a

few suggestions. First of all, it seemed to me that you

need to include more scientific information in the paper,

it seemed a little too brief. Secondly, there were a few

areas that were very brief, and need more explanation.

These areas include the hazards of volcanoes and the

prediction methods. These important topics received

less than 10 lines of text each, which seems too brief

for such vast topics. Overall, the content seemed to be

lacking in length and depth.

Style: Nice introduction picture. It proved to be very

visually stimulating and interesting. I would suggest

adding color to the sub-titles and alphabetizing your

vocabulary words. Finally, the picture at the end was

well placed.

Overall score: 2

Ch11Score: 2

Ch12: Earthquakes

Content: The overall content was very well done.

Specifically, the introducation to the societal aspects

section was great, and you used interesting statistics

about people's attitudes toward earthquakes. This

provided a good twist to the paper. The only suggestion

I would make is to lengthen the conclusion in order to

"leave the reader with a bang."

Style: Your figures and charts need captions throughout

the paper, but other than that, the style of the paper

looks very good!

Overall Score: 4

Ch12Score: 4

Ch13: Floods

Content: The statistics you used at the beginning of the

paper were very effective in gaining the reader's

attention and beginning the paper in an unconventional

method. The content of your paper was thorough and your

explanations were clear and understandable. Nice job in

content.

Format/Style: I have a few suggestions in regards to the

style of your paper. First of all, to stay consistent, I

would center the pictures that are left-justified. They

look awkward that way. Also, the Upper Mississippi River

diagram is too big to be effective - it was so large, I

didn't even bother trying to figure it out. It would be

better if you could shrink it. Also, the random numbers

by each picture are somewhat distracting - could you fix

that? Finally, I would suggest putting captions under

your pictures in order to help the reader. These are just

minor changes, and over all the style of the paper is nice.

You employ a good amount of pictures which are visually

pleasing.

Overall Score: 4

Ch3: Content: Your paper had a lot of good explanations such as

the classifications of water pollution (municipal,

industrial, and agricultural) and the health effects. I

thought that your conclusion was especially strong as well.

You may want to add a few more vocabulary words, but other

than that, the content was very complete.

Form: You displayed a nice writing style and one sentence

that I thought was especially strong was in your conclusion

("Global environmental collapse is not inevitable...") Your

paper was also very organized and I liked the picture you

used to introduce the paper.

Ch3Score: 4

Ch4: Content: Your paper had some very clear explanations,

especially that of the 4-stroke and 2-stroke engines. I

also liked the bulleted summary of important points after

all of the pictures near the end. One thing that I found

to be confusing was the health impacts on humans if

particles stay in the air. Form: You had some nice figures,

but I thought you might want to add some more, maybe

showing pictures that relate to the human effects portion

of the paper.

Ch4Score: 3

Ch5: Content: I thought you did a nice job with a lot of your

explanations especially when you used common terms to help

the reader understand (e.g. the pellets are the size of the

end of our fingers). I also thought you did a great job

showing the benefits of nuclear power. The section

"Protecting our Environment" was very strong. Form: I liked

that you had good subtitles and even smaller titles under

those helped to break the text up well. Some work could be

done in terms of your sentence structure and there were a

few grammatical errors as well that could have been fixed. In

addition, captions on your figures would have helped.

Ch5Score: 3

Ch6: Content: I really liked your intro with the "kids quote".

It was a creative way to start off your paper. I thought as

a whole your paper explained everything clearly and your

writing style was great too. I especially liked a few of

the figures that I thought added a lot to your explanations.

Figure 4 helped clarify the chemical reactions that go on

and the figure comparing the ozone hole to the sizes of the

continents helped put it into perspective. One part that

could have been expanded was the section on natural sources

of depletion. I wasn't sure if there were others besides

chlorine. Form: You used the subtitles well and had a lot

of great figures. One thing that might have helped your

paper be even more colorful would have been to add actual

photographs as some groups did.

Ch6Score: 5

Ch7: Content: I thought that you had a lot of good statistics

about recent changes and developments that showed thorough

research. Your discussion of the effects on the environment

was strong, especially the explanation of health concerns.

I also found it intersting that you mentioned the Chicago

heat wave. I'm from that area and remember it well, but

never made the connection between that weather and

greenhouse gases. Form: I thought your photographs added

a lot to your paper, but there were some grammatical errors

that could have been avoided by proofreading more times.

Ch7Score: 4

Ch8: Content: You had a very nice introduction including the

history of waste disposal. You also had a lot of

statistics. Your paper as a whole was written well, but

seemed a little short in comparision to others. I thought

you could have mentioned if there were other options for

waste disposal. Form: You did have some good figures, but

I thought you needed to add a glossary. Some words that

could have been included are organic polymers and pyrolysis.

Ch8Score: 2

Ch9: Content: In general, I thought your paper had a lot of good

explanations and included most everything that it needed

too. You could have been more clear in your explanation of

CO2 and its effects as a pollutant. You could also explain

why SO3 doesn't stay in our atmosphere (if you know).

Form: I liked that in some places you had the text wrap

around the figures and you had a good glossary, but you

could have used more color in the text headings.

Ch9Score: 3

Ch10: Content: You had a good description of the effects of

deforestation and I thought your discussion was espcecially

catchy. One thing that I thought was interesting also was

how much the food industry contributes to deforestation.

Form: The title was good-also very catchy and the paper as

a whole was organized well. You might want to add more

graphics, though, and there were a few typos that should

have been fixed.

Ch10Score: 3

Ch11: Content: I liked the intro and your comparison using people.

You also had clever subtitles (who, what, where, etc.). I

was a little confused about the pyroclastic fall deposits,

so an explanation of them might have been helpful. You

also could have defined ash plume in your paper. Form: I

liked the picture you used in your intro and the one at the

end too. Figure two was a little hard to see though.

Ch11Score: 2

Ch12: Content: All of your explanations were very clear and I

really liked how you separated before, during, and after an

earthquake. One part that confused me a little was in the

subduction zones part when there were a lot of definitions.

It was just a lot of words to try to learn in very few

sentences. Form: As a whole, your style was good, but a

couple of suggestions are to put more subtitles in the

societal aspects part and put your references at the end of

sentences rather than in middle. Also, I noticed a few

errors with the use of commas and semi colons that could be

fixed.

Ch12Score: 4

Ch13: Content: I liked the facts that you listed at the beginning

to catch the reader's attention to help them see the dangers

of floods. You also explained everything well in your paper

including the different types of floods and ways of

preventing floods. You could have said more about

education in your paper if you thought it was important.

It was only stressed in the conclusion. You are also

missing some glossary definitions. The reader needs to know

what those words mean. Form: The title could have been

bigger and you could have placed another picture at the top

of the page to make it more symmetrical. I liked the way

the figures were sometimes placed within the text and you

had nice short paragraphs which made it easy to read. I

also thought the photographs added a lot to the paper.

Another suggestion is to put in subtitles. I didn't notice

any, but they would have helped with the organization of the

paper.

Ch13Score: 4

Ch2: Their paper and presentation was extremely well done, especially when considering that they were the first team to present. The project was very informative, and clearly outlined the real dangers of population growth. The graphs and charts appropriately explain their case, and complement the project well. I do have one question though: why are women reproducing at earlier ages than they used to? No scientific reasoning was provided to explain this important phenomena. But it still was a great paper.

Ch2Score: 4

Ch3: I had a few problems with this paper. It wasn't very well presented. The red text is inappropriate and hard to read. A lot of the photos were unclear or even sloppily placed. Another thing is that I feel that there was a lack of hard evidence. Facts were ommited. Where is water pollution most prevalent in the world? What is the worst element of water pollution. Which pollutants do the most damage? I also felt that the pictures were not that important. This was supposed to be a research paper not CNN. They should have had charts depicting water pollution levels over time, percentage of contributers... But the movie was amusing.

Ch3Score: 2

Ch4: It was a very aesthetically pleasing presentation. I really like the Jurassic Park theme: I thought I was on the wrong page! But it really is presented beutifully. They may have used too many charts. Ming and Kate had a better balance and fit in imortant and explanatory info. I also was disturbed by the fact that nothing was footnoted. They had a lengthy resource list but never fit it into the paper. I feel that a lack of citation is a crime at the college level. But they did put a lot of work into it, and did a good job.

Ch4Score: 3

Ch5: I thought this paper was very well presented and informative. I think they explained the process of producing nuclear energy scientifically and clearly. They also made a compelling argument to promote the use of nuclear energy as a cleaner, safer, more cost efficient form of energy. I was upset though by the fact that they only began to use citations towards the end of the paper. I was suprised by the lack of consistency. But I do applaud their work on this paper!

Ch5Score: 4

Ch6: This paper is excellent. It truly acchomlishes everything it can as a paper. Cary and Joelle did an outstanding job putting this powerhouse repot together. It was very well written and researched. I also liked the dramatization at the introduction, I thought it was very creative. There is nothing bad I can say about this project. Its a "5" without a doubt.

Ch6Score: 5

Ch7: I despise modesty. I'm proud of the job we did!

Ch7Score: 5

Ch8: Luke did a commendable job, especially considering that he was the only member of our class to work alone. The paper was well done. Once again though, I was dismayed to find that nothing was cited. I also think that Luke could have had a few more visuals. Maybe pointing out Fresh Kills on a satellite image would have been cool. I'm from Manhatten, but one of my best friends is from Staten Island. The landfill is unbelievable! You can't tell if it's a mountain range or not- but you can tell when the wind gusts by! This paper could have been better, but considering that he put the who thing together he did a fine job.

Ch8Score: 4

Ch9: Pollution affects land also! This is a very big ommission. However, I am confused as to why they were given such a broad topic. Many of the projects talk about specific polllution (e.g. Greenhouse gases in the air, water pollution, waste disposal...) So they did have a ridiculous amount of things to cover. But they did cover them well. The paper was organized very logically: air pollution followed by water pollution and what we can do about it. I liked that the paper wasn't cluttered with unecessary figures. The paper was well researched with tons of scientific support and explanation. But, once again, where the heck did they find their stuff! No Citations!

Ch9Score: 4

Ch10: Several distracting errors take away from this paper. There are a few spelling mistakes and frequent grammatical problems. Some of the graphs are indecipherable, like the "Erosion" chart. I also feel that the focus was somewhat misdirected. Peasants are not the main contributor to deforestation! Logging in the amazon and stuff like that is the number one factor, yet it was given brief attention. They did use citations, but they aren't really proper ones. They did have a lot of research, buth the paper needs some work.

Ch10Score: 3

Ch11: It was a very thourough report on volcanoes. Maybe they should have used more historical references. Many volcanic eruptions have become internationally devastating. The paper could have explored t5hat a little more. Once again, this is a paper that lacks any citation for half the paper- I just don't get it!

Ch11Score: 3

Ch12: This is another truly outstanding project. It is interesting, fact filled and... They used citations! I really liked how they put the survey of peoples reactions to earthquakes... it was interesting and broadened the span of the paper. It was very well done.

Ch12Score: 5

Ch13: This was a solid paper. It was really well done. I can't beieve how extensive the glossary was! Thats the best word to sum this paper up: EXTENSIVE in all capital letters. I learned lots of neat little facts from it. I thought that the likelihhod of being killed by lightning is slim, but it was the number one human killer just a little while ago. It is indeed surprising that floods account for 75% of natural disaters- fascinating! They didn't really use proper citation- but I think I would overlook it in this case. It was a job well done.

Ch13Score: 5

Ch2: the content was very good and it was organized. i thought they could have had more pictures in there intro, just to make it more interesting.

i also thought they should have included real-life pictures of overpopulation.

overall, it was very good.

Ch2Score: 4

Ch4: i thought this was excellent. great usage of the pictures. they had a lot of useful

info and pictures. their content and layout were very good.

Ch4Score: 5

Ch5: their paper was very informative and interesting. it was clear and

easy to understand. they did a great job in selecting informative charts,

diagrams and pictures.

Ch5Score: 5

Ch6: they did a good job overall. i thought there introduction was cute

and the paper in generall was good. i think they lacked pictures

and diagrams. they could have used more. they also lost my attention at the end.

i think by adding pictures the paper could have benefitted.,

Ch6Score: 3

Ch7: i thought this was a good project. it was clear, straightfoward and

interesting. they did a good job in including real-life pictures and many

important charts. the paper its self was written very well, and they were very

and they ultimately did an effective job.

Ch7Score: 5

Ch8: i thought this was a good paper, but it was short. they could have

added more content to enrich their paper. their charts were good, but their should

have benn more of them. however the paper was well written, clear, and interesting.

Ch8Score: 3

Ch9: this paper was very good however they spent more time on the

scientific issues and not enough on the social. they did not include

photographs to grab the reader, but there paper made up for it, in content.

their paper was vey enlightening. they covered a lot of the topic which leaves the

reader satified and left without questions. it was clear and

cairfully laid out.

Ch9Score: 4

Ch10: this was a good paper. it was well organized and easy to follow.

it was very nice to see the links underneith the picture.

Ch10Score: 4

Ch11: this paper was well-organized and easy to read. it was very

clear and organized. they did a nice job with the pictures and

charts. this was ultimately a great paper. it kept me reading. it

was very interesting.

Ch11Score: 5

Ch12: their paper was very informative and interesting. it was clear and

easy to understand. they did a great job in selecting informative charts,

diagrams and pictures.

Ch12Score: 5

Ch13: i thought this was a good project. it was clear, straightfoward and

interesting. they did a good job in including real-life pictures and many

important charts. the paper its self was written very well, and they were very

and they ultimately did an effective job. i also thought it was great

that they seperated there key words within the paper.

Ch13Score: 5

Ch2: Form:

The web page is well layed-out. The actual headings made it easy to read.

The graphics were very appropriate. I especially liked the "actual size" one.

content:

the arguments made are good, but the solutions offered are a bit far-fetched.

Ch2Score: 4

Ch3: form:

nice job balancing graphics w/ data graphs.

content:

the outlining of causes was good. i think that you guys did a good job following through with adequet information re: the causes.

the options were a bit limited however.

Ch3Score: 3

Ch4: form:

the graphics were really good, but there were way too many.

also, intead of copying those oil--spill effect html forms, you should have just linked them.

things were well placed and easy to read.

content:

there was a lot of information and your scientific and societal affects seemed to have no linkage whatsoever. I think that it could have been put in better layman terms.

Ch4Score: 3

Ch5: form:

the site was done pretty well w/ graphics and the layout was alright.

content:

too much science-y numbers.

also, it seemed like you were defending events like chernoybyl.

you didn't really explore the negative consequences as much as you could have.

Ch5Score: 3

Ch6: form:

good graphics, but w/ subtitles and heading placed more clearly, it would have been easier to read.

content:

it seemed that health problems were the main focus of your societal affects. perhaps examining more issues... ?

the "What we can do" part was very good.

also, the contemporary research on what exactly is going on now, just not boring scientific facts about atmosphere- the balance was done well.

Ch6Score: 4

Ch7: content:

the information was very complete.

although more could have been said about what ppl are doing about it than the "Kyoto Protocal". you could have expanded to what the auto industry, etc. are doing about it.

it was well written though.

form:

graphics were good- good balance of charts and photos.

it was also layed-out well, made it easy to read.

Ch7Score: 4

Ch8: content:The website didn't give a lot of answers as to what people can do about the problem.

the info was a little too vauge. i would have liked more.

form:

the graphics and graphs were good

Ch8Score: 2

Ch9: content:

all of the chemical anaylsis and charts were a bit dull.

form:

the way that you guys took each type of pollution and gave science and society for each topic was very helpful.

It could have been spiced up a little more with graphics and as many graphs.

Ch9Score: 3

Ch10: form:

graphics were good. the subtitles and titles for each subject made it wasy to read.

content:

very well written. the intro especially was good.

you made the cause seem very important

Ch10Score: 4

Ch11: form:

the hand-drawn graphics could have been done on a computer or something to look a little nicer.

Some more interesting graphics would have helped.

content:

a little more about the steps an earthquake takes to grow and erupt would have been nice.

otherwise, it was a good balance of societal and scientific effects

the intro was great!

Ch11Score: 3

Ch12: Form:

graphics were awesome!

THe material was spaced out well too.

The graphs and charts were also really good.

content:

I really like the different "Theories" of earthquakes.

It was a good balance between societal and science.

Ch12Score: 4

Ch2: Good usage of language in intro when using words such as "shocking!" I liked

how the intro also poses the points of the page clearly and informatively.

(brith and death rates). The graphs are not great but the second one is somewhat

interesting. The info throughout the page is excellent and abundent, educating

the reader on facts by the dozens. The compartamentalization is good too. Everything

is organized and neatly divided by section.Great color graph and pie chart. I do not

like the graph "an interdependent world" because of its vagueness and blandness. The

page offers solid options of what we can do in the future. I also like blue text on the

off white background with the green sud dividers. Overall, this is a well written and put

together page.

Ch2Score: 4.1

Ch3: I like the globe in the first part of the page. The red and off white goes

well with each other and looks somehwat professional. I also like the water

and bridge picture as well as the Green Peace picture. Good usage of placing

text along side of the pictures and graphs. Could there be too amny pictures?

I like how everything was classified into compartments which made it easily read.

The graphs have great color, especiall the one for water quality. Interesting conclusion

and good points of what we can do in the future as citizens.

Ch3Score: 4

Ch4: Interesting picture on front with dinosaur from Jurrassic Park.

Great idea, clever, novel, and creative. Too small of an introduction.

Good colors of blue text on off white background. Too many large pictures

at the start of the page. Good info under "formation section." Great info

under "combustion, drilling, nd refining section." Excellent graphs under

"what's left section." The easiest facts to read are under the "putting things

into perspective section." Very interesting conclusion, good use of other types

of eneregy sources.

Ch4Score: 3.875

Ch5: Excellent page!

Ch5Score: 5

Ch6: I liked the introduction. It's creative, novel, and an interesting

way of doing an introduction. I think that there is a solid description

of ozone layers and what they are compriised of. Excellent graph over the

regions of the atmosphere. Good picture of the globe and solid detailed info

that follows. I especially like the bar graph on the the ozone holes. As good as

the graphs are, there are not enough actual pictures. Good summary and a nice long

glossary to help the reader understand the material better.

Ch6Score: 3.3

Ch7: Excellent page! Good intro and colored picture. The pie chart that

follows is interesting because of its boldness and color as well. There

is great info on the dioxide, methane, and other fluoralcarbons. Great

picture of the highway, it conveys info well. The map is good, forest

picture is good, and there is great place ment of graphs with text. The

picture of the flooding over the bridge has an impact on the reader as well

as the info on global warming. Good colors and solid background. The

organization is excellent and the opinion section is informative and helpful.

Ch7Score: 4.5

Ch8: I do not like the colors of the red text on the off white background.

There is good usage of placing text with graphs, as well as strong clear

looking graphs. This is especially true of the municiple solid waste graph.

There is also an excellent bar graph for "tonnage per day", which I liked.

Over all, however, he page is too short, not enough excitement, and not really

that enticing to read. Althought some of the information is interesting, I never would

have read it if I did not have to, only for the reasont that it's boring and poorly presented

on the page.

Ch8Score: 2.6

Ch9: Nice colors and the text is clearly seen throughout the page. The intro

is too small and there are too many graphs without pictures. When there

are graphs, they lack because of no color. I like the map of the United

States near the end. Also, the 'what can we do" section is interesting

and easily readable and understood. I give it a 3.75 for its earnest attempt

to educate its reades on the many problems of pollttion.

Ch9Score: 3.75

Ch10: Great title, nice big map in front, good colors throughout page.

Good graph of the "land use cycle of subsistence agricultures."

I liked the huge graph under erosion, it was a bit blurried on my

screen, but had excellent colors. Overall, good use of text and pictures.

Ch10Score: 3.5

Ch11: Great first picture and excellent orginization throughout the

page. I like the questions of why, where, and when of the Volcanoe

situation. The pictures of the volcanoes are excellent, really cool!

I like the figure showing plate movements, as well as all the other graphs

and pictures.

Ch11Score: 3.95

Ch12: I thought this page was good but flawed. The intorduction was

too short and the colors were too plain. Nothing entised me to

read further past the short introduction. I did like the map in

the very beggining of the page. There was great information and

fascinating factual information presented throughout. I like the

facts sheet, theories, and other various information about the subject.

The pictures of the buldings were really cool and added nicely to the page.

Overall, this page was well written.

Ch12Score: 4.2

Ch13: This is an excellent page. The picture on the front is shocking,

which grabs the readers attention from the start. I like how one

can click onto cartain words for mre clarification. Most of the

pictures are excellent as well. The "ocean planet picture is great,

along with the pictures of all the floods. I thought that the flooding

incidence map was interesting and very relevant. I really liked the different

maps of the United States, showing flood damage and frequency. The information

was abundent and displayed in a clear and understanding manner.

Ch13Score: 4.7

Ch2: Form: Nice use of figures. The text is divided up clearly

with a logical flow of ideas. There is a coherent and

orderly flow to the paper that makes it easy to read.

content: I think this paper has a lot of informative facts

about the issue. You might want to add more to the discussion and

conclusion. There are several solutions to the population

crisis that you have mentioned and you might want to consider

why one solution would appear to be more helpful than the rest.

Nice job in considering how the U.S. can get involved considering

that over population is not a major concern according to your findings

in this country.

Ch2Score: 5

Ch3: content: I think that this paper did a good job on trying to

inform the reader of the causes of water polution. More could

have been devoted to the solutions of water polution. The pictures

look nice but I don't think that they add anything or inhance

anything all that much that you talk about in the paper.

form: Could combine the two sections titled point/ nonpoint sources

and causes. The captions should be more isolated from the text

to give a more clear explaination of your figures.

Ch3Score: 3

Ch4: content: I think that there is a lot of stress on what kinds

of engines are being used today. I think that this is maybe

stressed too much. Most of the focus should be on the enviornment

and people.

form: Captions should follow the figures to make them easily distinguishable

I think that they also could have been integrated into the text more instead

of putting in a large amount of them in one place. At the end

of the paper it seemed like there were more figures than text.

Ch4Score: 4

Ch5: content: I think that it might be helpful to add more and

expand what is written about the effects of fossil fuels and

the polution that they cause. Also, add more specifically why

you think the benifits of nuclear energy out weigh the risks.

form: Add more to captions. The subheadings were logical and placed carefully

There wad a logical flow of ideas in the paper.

Ch5Score: 4

Ch6: content: Nice creative way to start the paper and get the reader

to listen. Lots of informative facts that contribute to the readers

understanding. I didn't understand all of the figures, they could use

an expaned caption to make them more clear.

form: The paper was organized in a logical manner. You don't really need the

summary at the end. I think that you should just leave off with

the discussion and solutions. The paper has already gone over

what your major points are and they need no further stressing.

Ch6Score: 5

Ch7: content: I think that the general facts that are given are

clear explainations of the greenhouse effect and what makes

the green house gasses as dangerous as they are. You might

want to add more about alternatives and solutions to the green house

situation.

form: The opening to the paper takes too long to get to the point.

The figures are kind of clumped to gerther and I would try to spread them pout more.

The pictures looked nice but some of them did not add much

to your points. I think that in general the paper did have a

clear organizational pattern.

Ch7Score: 4

Ch8: content: I think that the causes are suffiently explored but i

would expand on the discussion of solutions like other forms

of waste disposel not just recycling.

form: Nice organization and use of subheadings. Add clear

captions that would seperate pictures form text and give a

better understanding of your figures.

Ch8Score: 3

Ch9: content:Add brief mention of other forms of polution. You did

a nice job discussing air and water but i think that a brief

mention would do justice to the others. Nice discussion of

how to help solve polution.

form: Add more subdivisions of text. Seperate the captions from

the text more clearly for the reader.

Ch9Score: 5

Ch10:

Ch10Score: 1-5

Ch11: content: The opening paragraph was nice and direct. I think

that the explaination of how volacanos are formed and errupt

was done in a way that informed the reader clearly. I would expand a little

on how deaths caused by volcanos could be prevented. Nice captions.

form: The beginging subdivision headings were vauge. I think

that they might be better if they were more specific for the reader.

Ch11Score: 4

Ch12: content:The begining paragrapgh should include something more

than a definition of earthquakes to get the reader involved in

the paper and the topic. I would expand the conclusion more.

form: The organization was clear and focused. I think that more

subheadings would be helpful in the society part, it is a little

long with just the one break in it. Add more captions and

seperate them from the text.

Ch12Score: 4

Ch13: content: The basic background about flood is really nicely done.

I think taht you could expand the conclusion and didcussion

a little bit more to talk about how deaths and damage could

be avioded. You use a lot of useful facts but i think that a lot

of the pictures just look nice but add nothing toi your facts.

form: This paper was kind of hard to read with no subheadings.

These would help to clarify and organize the text in a way that

would also strees and highlight the helpful facts that you have.

Ch13Score: 3

Ch2: Content:

-easy to understand, thoroughly explained topic, well-defined vocabulary, well-integrated figures

Form:

-organized--good use of subheadings, colorful, clearly-labeled figures, bolded vocabulary

Ch2Score: 5

Ch3: Content:

-easy to understand, topic lacked solid scientific information, weak glossary

Form:

-organized--good use of subheadings, colorful, clearly-labeled figures, bibiliography not in proper form

Ch3Score: 3

Ch4: Content:

-easy to understand, well-integrated figures, too many figures "thrown" in at the end, glossary was not appropriate--fellow classmates know basic definitions and the use of a dictionary including phonetics is not necessary

Form:

-organized--good use of subheadings, colorful

Ch4Score: 3

Ch5: Content:

-easy to understand, well-integrated figures

Form:

-organized--good use of subheadings, colorful, clearly-labeled figures

Ch5Score: 4

Ch6: Content:

-easy to understand, thoroughly explained topic, well-defined vocabulary, well-integrated figures

Form:

-organized--good use of subheadings, colorful, clearly-labeled figures

Ch6Score: 5

Ch7: Content:

-easy to understand, thoroughly explained topic and figures, well-defined vocabulary, well-integrated figures

Form:

-organized--good use of subheadings, colorful, clearly-labeled figures

Ch7Score: 5

Ch8: Content:

-easy to understand, illustrative figures lacked integration with paper, no glossary, very short

Form:

-colorful, good use of subheadings

Ch8Score: 2

Ch9: Content:

-a little confusing to understand with the various formulas and mathematical explanations, well-integrated figures but additional figures would have made it easier to understand

Form:

-organized but difficult to find subheadings (not big enough), not colorful

Ch9Score: 3

Ch10: Content:

-easy to understand, well-integrated figures

Form:

-organized--good use of subheadings, colorful, clearly-labeled figures

-erosion chart is not clear (fuzzy image)

Ch10Score: 4

Ch11: Content:

-easy to understand however, seems short, illustrative images but seemed ill-placed

Form:

-organized--good use of subheadings, colorful

Ch11Score: 3

Ch12:

Ch12Score: 1-5

Ch13: Content:

-easy to understand, thoroughly explained topic and figures, well-defined vocabulary, well-integrated figures

Form:

-organized--good use of subheadings, colorful, clearly-labeled figures, web links (vocabulary, figures) were helpful

Ch13Score: 5

Ch2: I enjoyed reading this paper. I thought the information was presented in a very organized manner and it was easy to follow and understand. I found the section, "An Interdependent World" to be very interesting, I also liked how all of their points were explained rather than just stated and not covered. The paper was very informative. Form: informative graphs, perhaps there could have been a bit more contrst in color of the graphs. Overall, great paper!

Ch2Score: 5

Ch3: The paper was very easyt o folloe. I didn't like how the paper was written around the pictures. Aslo, some sentences (see section on Ground Water) didn't flow too well. It was very informative. Great pictures!! The paper was very colorful and so were the graphs. Figure one should be bigger so reders can actually see what the graph is depicting. Overall, nice job!

Ch3Score: 3

Ch4: The paper was very informative and easy to follow! The graphs helped explain the material and they were very colorful. Perhaps the paper could have been worded in a more sophisticated manner. Some sentences didn't flow well about the history of fossill fuels. I found the section on distillate fuels to be very informative. Also, the part on different types of engin. I liked the part on "Health Impacts." Interesting facts and statistics.

Ch4Score: 4

Ch5: I thought the paper was very informative. Thr graphics were great! However, I thought the section "Powering our Economy" could have been worded a little more carefully. Interesting facts under "Protesting our Environmant." The paper was well written and it kept my interst. Nice color contrast and good choice of pictures/graphs!

Ch5Score: 3

Ch6: Great way of starting the paper with conversation. It was a good way to catch one's attention. The graphics were great and the page was very colorful! The paper was very informative and well written. The charts/pictures/graphs were informative and they helped explain the information well. The paper was well organized. I found the paper to be very interesting; especially the part about cancer and other illnesses. Nice catchy slogans! Overall, this was a great paper!

Ch6Score: 5

Ch7: The paper was very informative. I like the graphics and the paper was very colorful! The charts and graphs gave a good understanding of the information. They helped in the understanding of the data. I liked the section "Effects of Global Warming on Society." Also, the section on the Kyoto Protocol was very interesting. I had never heard of it before and from reading the paper, I was able to gain an understanding of what it was. Overall, I thought the paper was very well written. It was well organized and easy to follow. Great job!

Ch7Score: 4

Ch8: The paper was informative and had some nice pictures. Perhaps there could have been more graphs/charts and there could have been more color. The paper could have also caontained a bit more information. I found the section "Fresh Kills" to be interesting. Perhaps there could have been more data/facts and the paper could have been a bit longer. Nice job.

Ch8Score: 2

Ch9: The paper was well written and very informative! There was lots of information and they did a good job covering the important aspects of pollution! Perhaps the paper could have had a little more graphs and color. Overall, this paper was really goog. It was informative. However, I think it needed more work on the overall presentation, not paper.

Ch9Score: 3

Ch10: The paper was very informative and there was a lot of information covered in the paper. They did a good job covering many aspects of deforestaton. Perhaps there could have been more clear graphics. The page could have also used a bit more color. Overall, it wass well writtena nd well organized. The paper was easy to follow and it displayed well. Nice job.

Ch10Score: 3

Ch11: The paper was well organized and informative. Great way of opening the page. The picture was incredible! It grabbed my attention! There was a decent amount of information covered. Perhaps there could have been a bit more hard facts covered. The paper was well written but it ocld have been more informative and covered more in detail. Nice job.

Ch11Score: 3

Ch12: This paper was very well written and very informative. Good job with the section on the scientific facts. They used nice graohs and charts which helped give a better understanding of what earthquakes were. They covered a lot of material and discussed different aspects of their topic. Perhaps the paper could have contained a bit more colorful. The paper was exdcelent but the presentation could have used a little more work. They did a grerat job explaining earthquakes and I learned a lot from this paper! Great job!

Ch12Score: 5

POPULATION GROWTH AND SOCIETY -- Mindy Cheng and Kate Kennedy

I thought the introduction was very catchy to the website. The text was

very informative and their use of images and graphs were great. Also, the

body was very well written. Grade -----> 5

FOSSIL FUELS AND SOCIETY -- Osman Chugtai and Dave Shannon

The first image was really cool!! There were an exorbitant number of

images which contributed to a very good website. I thought they should

have incorporated the first few graphs with the text. Grade -----> 4

NUCLEAR ENERGY AND SOCIETY -- Jon Stone and Ilan Lipper

The body of the website was well written and easy to understand for

somebody who is a bit unclear about a few aspects regarding nuclear energy

(like me!). I thought their use of images was really good and I especially

like the portion about nuclear weapons. Grade ------> 4

OZONE LAYER AND SOCIETY -- Joelle Busman and Cary Belen

I didn't feel that the skit was necessary for the intro to their

website. The paper was very well written and the images were perfect for

the topic. More pictures could have been used however. Grade -----> 4

GREENHOUSE GASES AND SOCIETY -- Nick Hopwood and Jordan Cohen

I thought that the images displayed were very interesting. The body was

very well written and Nick and Jordan made the topic easy to understand.

Overall I thought this was a great evidenced. Grade -----> 5

VOLCANOES AND SOCIETY -- Sarah Getsinger and Erin Nalepa

The first image was great as it immediately caught my attention. The

other pictures were great as they directly correlated with the text. This

was a good website on an interesting topic. Grade ----> 4

DEFORESTATION AND SOCIETY -- Andy Rochen and Jocelyn Stock

I didn't quite understand the second image. And in another image it was

blurry to read (it must have been the scanner because the same thing

happened to us!). The paper was very well written as I was thoroughly

impressed with Mr. Rochen's ability to produce a great website on a topic

that isn't all that interesting. Grade -----> 4

POLLUTION AND SOCIETY -- Carl Horowitz and Marisa Buchanan

I felt as though this website needed more color. The text was very well

written and they made it easy to understand. More color would have

definitely helped contribute to making the website more eye catching.

Grade -----> 3

WASTE DISPOSAL AND SOCIETY -- Luke Bassis

This was a very interesting topic as was Luke's presentation (i think

comedy is in his future somewhere down the line). I thought that Luke

could have had more images of waste. Overall it was a good website.

Grade ---> 3

EARTHQUAKES AND SOCIETY -- Courtney Brunious and Amanda Warner

I thought that the images were really cool especially the one of the

building collapsing. The paper itself was very well written and the topic

was very interesting. Grade -----> 3

FLOODS AND SOCIETY -- Katy Pearce and Deborah Leib

I liked the way one could click on the key terms and immediately obtain

the definitions -- ingenious idea. The pictures in this website were

really great especially the one of the map of the U.S. I really thought

that this website, more so than any other, was interesting to read. Grade

----> 5