Oxidative Transpositions of Bicyclic Cyclopentenones Mediated by Selenium Dioxide Research

The focus should be on the scientific writing and giving a cohesive story.  The draft should be written to an audience who has a knowledge of both organic I and organic II.  Turn the outline into a logical and understandable paper.  This draft will be used for the peer review. After the draft has been written, make sure to read over it at least twice.  Make sure to edit your draft at least once before handing it in, and double

Formatting is in the same manner as Organic Letters:

Click here for templates

Topic: the Oxidative Transpositions of Bicyclic Cyclopentenones Mediated by Selenium Dioxide (SeO2) Superior (90-100%)
Formatting
Figures
References
Editing
Scientific Writing
Excellent (75-90%)
Paper follows Org. Lett. formatting
properly
Paper mostly follows Org. Lett.
formatting, some errors (2-3)
Figures are labeled and formatted
Figures are properly labeled, formatted,
well, but some minor errors present
and provide useful information about
(2-6). Figures mostly help enhance
the paper without being distracting
the text
Most references are formatted
All references are formatted properly,
properly (2-4 errors), 10 min
10 min references are met. Each
references are met. Each reference
reference has a short (1-3 sentence), has a short (1-2 sentence) summary
clear summary of the article
of the article. Summaries too
generic.
Satisfactory (60-74%)
Poor (0-59%)
Total Points
Paper somewhat follows Org. Lett.
formatting, many errors (5-10)
Figures contain many errors in labeling
and formatting (7-12). Figures provide
some redundant or unhelpful
information
Paper does not follows Org. Lett.
formatting, errors everywhere (12+)
10
Figures contain numerous errors and
detract from the text
10
Most references are not formatted
properly. 10 Reference minimum is not
met. Reference summaries are unclear.
10
Some references are formatted properly
(7-12 errors), 10 reference minimum is
met. Reference summaries are vague
but still provide enough to understand
the article
Paper has many editing mistakes that do
occasionally detract from the paper.
Paper is incomplete. Mistakes are common.
Similar mistakes are frequently found
No clear sense of organization. Writing is
throughout the paper. Some
vague.
organization issues. Writing is
occasionally unclear
20
Paper demonstrates understanding
Paper demonstrates some
of the topic. Some specific matter is
understanding of the topic. Specific
Paper demonstrates expertise of the
Paper demonstrates minimal
covered but in not enough detail to matter is occasionally covered. Material
topic, highlighting the specifics of the
understanding of the topic. Few details are
show expertise. Appropriate
is too generic at times. Appropriate
area of research. Appropriate
given. Appropriate vocabulary is rarely or
vocabulary is mostlu used to
vocabulary is occasionally used to
vocabulary is used to describe the topic.
never used. Any ideas unfamiliar to the
describe the topic. Any ideas
describe the topic. Any ideas unfamiliar
Any ideas unfamiliar to the audience
audience are not explained or explained
unfamiliar to the audience are
to the audience are occasionally
are properly and clearly explained.
incorrectly..
mostly explained, but require
explained, but require further reference
further reference to understand
to understand.
40
Paper has few, inconsistent editing
mistakes that do not detract from the
paper.
Paper has a some editing mistakes
that do not detract from the paper.
Similar mistakes are found
throughout the paper. Some
organization issues
Background
The paper covers the prior art, as
well as the current state of the art
The paper throughly covers the prior
in the area of research. However, a
art, as well as the current state of the
few key papers are not referenced.
art in the area of research. Most to all
Some major accomplishments are
major accomplishments are highlighted
highlighted. Challenges in the area
effectively. Challenges in the area of
of research are identified, but lack
research are accurately identified.
some subtlely in the difficulties.
Contains just the right amount of detail.
Might cover too much or too little
background
The paper somewhat covers the prior
art, as well as the current state of the art
in the area of research. However, many
key papers are not referenced. A few
major accomplishments are highlighted.
However, descriptions are unclear at
times. Challenges in area of research
are not always clearly identified. Might
cover too much or too little background.
Cohesion between Prior art,
accomplishments, challenges, and the
paper chosen is not clear.
The paper fails to cover most of the prior
art, as well as the current state of the art in
the area of research. Major
accomplishments in the are aof research
are incorrectly or not covered. However,
descriptions are unclear at times.
Challenges are incorrectly or improperly
identified. Might cover too much or too
little background. Cohesion between Prior
art, accomplishments, challenges, and the
paper chosen is not clear. Section is lacking
in significant detail
50
Description/
Importance of Paper
Paper shows just the right amount of
Paper describes key
detail, highlighting key transformations,
transformations, steps, ect of
steps, ect. Clearly makes a compelling research. However, at times, some
argument for how this research
key details are missing, or too much
advances the state of the art. Paper
detail is given. Explains how this
thoughtfully reflects on how it fits in the research advances the state of the
state of the literature.
art at a 400 level.
Paper describes transformations, steps,
ect of research with some detail. Some
Paper fails to include most
minor elements are incorrectly focused
transformations, steps, ect of research.
on. Explains how this research advances Paper is fails to explain how chosen paper
the state of the art at a rudimentary
has advanced the current field
level.
50
Critique
Paper critiques the chosen paper;
Paper thoughtfully critiques the chosen Most critiques are thoughtful but
paper. Pros and cons, both anticipated may contain generic, irrelevant, or
and unanticipated, sucessfully covered. unclear elements. Anticipated pros
and cons are successfully covered.
Future Directions
Paper thoroughly and creatively
describes where the paper and area of
research should go next
Paper describes where the paper
and area of research should go
next. Sometimes suggestions are
vague or lacking precedent.
Paper critiques the chosen paper;
however, arguments are fairly general
in nature. Few specific critiques are
given. Some pros and cons are missed
Paper fails to adequately critique chosen
paper. Arguments are lacking. Most pros
and cons missed.
20
Paper describes where the paper and
area of research should go next.
However, the suggestions are either
unfeasible or already demonstrated in
the literature
Paper does not suggest thoughtful future
directions
20
Your
score
Total
230