Category	Mark	Comments
Overall	7.5	Well written and easy to navigate. Lacks a nice heading at top of main page. Missed out units for scattering lengths (10-14 m, but better to multiply values by 10 and quote in fermi or femtometre) in introduction, but at least values were quoted! Probably too many plots.
HTML	9	Error with qualifiers for the <BODY> tag. Some lines a little long due to hard spaces being used, but otherwise really excellent HTML. Even the Ångstrom symbol, etc., has been inserted done correctly (i.e. not as an 8 bit character, but as &Aring;). requested. Also made correct use of the <PRE> tag for the CIF file so that it appears as plain text.
Results A	7.5	Clear tables of final parameters are supplied. Should not have refined individual isotropic B values though, and definitely not anisotropic values later on. Far too many parameters are being refined here! Seemed to refine all parameters available within the Rietveld program. Incomplete tables of molecular bond angles and distances.
Results B	16	Clear tables of final parameters supplied, but as for data set A far too many parameters were refined (and without justification). Similar comments generally as for A above.
Tables	12	Tables lack formal captions, though are clearly numbered and referenced in the text. Some of the refined parameters could be given in table form also, rather than as a plain text list. Minor typo for S-O(3) distance in table 9?
Figures	12.5	Figure captions missing, though figures are clearly numbered and referenced in text. A couple of figures had insufficient space for difference profile and reflection tick marks (i.e. bad scaling).
CIF	10	A lovely example of how a CIF file should appear. Clearly, candidate has not blindly taken the output from the software and inserted it as is.
Finale	3.5	The most disappointing part of the report: too brief with the fit of the orthorhombic model to the limited data set not really being discussed at all.