To receive Phase II credit, students must th following two things:
(50%) present a reasonable review of a reviewed Module's positive and negative aspects. To do properly, this takes at least 30-60 minutes per Module and requires careful reading of the Module and checking for plagiarism. Failure to identify obvious plagiarism (e.g. from your textbook or from an Internet search engine) in a reviewed Module will results in loss of all Phase II credit. Students must complete and copy the attached comments into the Talk Page (requires logging in to do). As a reviewer, it is your responsibility to confirm that the original authors did NOT plagiarize or present copyrighted material on their Module. To do this, you must evaluate the module with respect to your textbook to look for blatant or not-so-blatant theft of writing AND you must Google (or Bing) three keywords from the Internet and compare the results with the Module you are reviewing. If any indication of Plagiarism is found and it is not corrected by Phase II deadline, then all ChemWiki credit (for all two phases) for the authors is lost.
(50%) The second part of Phase II is light editing to correct the mistakes you found (~2 hours max). THis is via the same protocols used in Phase I effort.
Each review is evaluated on following points.
1. Synopsis: In this section, summarize the module in a brief paragraph in your words. Do not cut and paste; this is to ensure you read and understood the Module you reviewed.
2. Is the Module ready to go to Vet2 level? No misspellings? Everything accurate? Organized well?
3. Review Details: In this section provide a detailed critical review of the module. This includes format, overview, mistakes etc. Confirm with the ChemWiki FAQ for guidelines and specific details. Is the Length appropriate (not too long and not too short)? Was the English correct (proper punctuation and spelling)? Is the Module accurate or full of mistakes?
Figures Questions (if applicable)
- Are the images included critical for understanding the results described in the text?
- Are meaningful figure legends provided?
- Is each figure referenced by number in the text?
- Can you suggest any improvements to the images provided?
- Are additional images necessary for understanding the results described in the text? Describe
what additional images would be helpful to you as a reader.
Tables Questions (if applicable)
- Are data presented in tabular format appropriately labeled (meaningful column headings, units) and understandable?
- Does each table have a meaningful title?
- Is each table referenced by number in the text?
- Is a tabular format the best way to present such data or can you suggest an alternative presentation method?
- Are any additional table needed? Describe what additional information would be helpful to you as a reader.
- Is the presentation of results easy to follow?
- Does each paragraph have a topic sentence (or are multiple apparently unrelated ideas included in each paragraph – label such paragraphs in the text for the author to revise)?
- Are there distracting grammatical/spelling errors? (Correct in the module itself)
- Is there a logical organization? If not, provide suggestions on an alternative organization.
4. Fix one mistake in the Module: This can be something simple as a spelling mistake or a fundamental error in the Chemistry of the Module. You must do this directly in the Module via the "Edit" command.
5. Plagiarism Checks: Failure of identifying clear plagariasm in the module you are reviewing will results in loss of ALL Phase II credit for you as a reviewer and naturally loss of Phase I credit for the original author of the Module. Check the Module against the following online plagiarism tools (all three) and indicate if a plagiarism may have occurred.
6. Figure Check: Confirm that the images are not taken from commercial sites.