Category	Mark	Comments
Overall	7	Contents page made navigation relatively simple. Basic structure OK, though a little more text would have improved the general flow of the report.
HTML	8.5	<FONT> tags at start give problems when document is printed due to error with </SMALL> use in Rwp in page 7. Similar problems suspected on other pages given printed copy of report. (No units given so no opportunity to make 8 bit character errors.) Some HREF filenames have mixed uppercase and lowercase letters. The comments tags are used incorrectly: the end comment tag should be "-->". This has no effect on the visual appearance, but does affect the view source option of some browsers. There were some spurious binary characters (mainly NULLs) at the end of some HTML files (which don't display with Netscape, but which do with Internet Explorer!).
Results A	6.5	Inappropriate to refine individual B values for this range of data. It is not very clear from the report whether all variable parameters were actually being refined in the final cycle of refinement or not! Text was too brief and no geometric parameters given.
Results B	9.5	Refinement using P121/n1 OK, though same comment as before concerning what exactly was refined when. Serious problem with P21/b11 refinement since the candidate has opted to refine using P121/a1 with a change of axes, but seems to have varied the wrong unit-cell angle (A)! Rietica allows this error, so the user should take care: not all Rietveld software is foolproof.
Tables	9.5	No tables of "final" parameters, though plenty of tables. None of the tables seem to have esd information. Many values within tables are quoted too procisely. Tables contain many irrelevant parameters (as far as project report is required). Use of capitals for the chemical symbol of lead ("PB") is not good practice. No units (e.g. Å, °, etc.) are given in the tables. Better captions for tables required.
Figures	11	JPG files used instead of GIF. Figure caption minimalistic with no explanation as to meaning of symbols with each figure (though the meaning is given at one point in the body of the text). Too many count labels up y axis. Insufficient space given for difference profile on one plot (e.g. poor scaling).
CIF	6	Bizarre esd values given: they are all identical. Esd values given for unrefined parameters too, e.g. on 90° cell angles.
Finale	7.5	Reasonable, but no discussion on bond lengths and angles. Correct space group deduction, though little appreciation of why the limited range of data gave the wrong result. Appreciated that temperature factors should be lower at 5 K.