Exit this survey

New Understandings in Wine Oxidation Chemistry Symposium

Presenter Information & Speaker Evaluation

25% of survey complete.

Question Title

* 1. Please evaluate each speaker. (speakers listed alphabetically)

	Excellent	Good	Average	Fair	Poor
Paul Kilmartin, (Co-Chair) University of Auckland, New Zealand	Paul Kilmartin, (Co-Chair) University of Auckland, New Zealand Excellent	Paul Kilmartin, (Co-Chair) University of Auckland, New Zealand Good	Paul Kilmartin, (Co-Chair) University of Auckland, New Zealand Average	Paul Kilmartin, (Co-Chair) University of Auckland, New Zealand Fair	Paul Kilmartin, (Co-Chair) University of Auckland, New Zealand Poor
Maurizio Ugliano, (Co-Chair) University of Verona, Italy	Maurizio Ugliano, (Co-Chair) University of Verona, Italy Excellent	Maurizio Ugliano, (Co-Chair) University of Verona, Italy Good	Maurizio Ugliano, (Co-Chair) University of Verona, Italy Average	Maurizio Ugliano, (Co-Chair) University of Verona, Italy Fair	Maurizio Ugliano, (Co-Chair) University of Verona, Italy Poor
Andrew Waterhouse, (Co-Chair) University of California, Davis	Andrew Waterhouse, (Co-Chair) University of California, Davis Excellent	Andrew Waterhouse, (Co-Chair) University of California, Davis Good	Andrew Waterhouse, (Co-Chair) University of California, Davis Average	Andrew Waterhouse, (Co-Chair) University of California, Davis Fair	Andrew Waterhouse, (Co-Chair) University of California, Davis Poor
Marlize Bekker, The Australian Wine Research Institute, Australia	Marlize Bekker, The Australian Wine Research Institute, Australia Excellent	Marlize Bekker, The Australian Wine Research Institute, Australia Good	Marlize Bekker, The Australian Wine Research Institute, Australia Average	Marlize Bekker, The Australian Wine Research Institute, Australia Fair	Marlize Bekker, The Australian Wine Research Institute, Australia Poor
Linda Bisson, University of California, Davis	Linda Bisson, University of California, Davis Excellent	Linda Bisson, University of California, Davis Good	Linda Bisson, University of California, Davis Average	Linda Bisson, University of California, Davis Fair	Linda Bisson, University of California, Davis Poor
John Danilewicz, Enology Consultant, United Kingdom	John Danilewicz, Enology Consultant, United Kingdom Excellent	John Danilewicz, Enology Consultant, United Kingdom Good	John Danilewicz, Enology Consultant, United Kingdom Average	John Danilewicz, Enology Consultant, United Kingdom Fair	John Danilewicz, Enology Consultant, United Kingdom Poor
Laurent Fargeton, Vivelys, France	Laurent Fargeton, Vivelys, France Excellent	Laurent Fargeton, Vivelys, France Good	Laurent Fargeton, Vivelys, France Average	Laurent Fargeton, Vivelys, France Fair	Laurent Fargeton, Vivelys, France Poor
Antonio Ferreira, Cork Supply, Portugal	Antonio Ferreira, Cork Supply, Portugal Excellent	Antonio Ferreira, Cork Supply, Portugal Good	Antonio Ferreira, Cork Supply, Portugal Average	Antonio Ferreira, Cork Supply, Portugal Fair	Antonio Ferreira, Cork Supply, Portugal Poor
Vicente Ferreira, University of Zaragoza, Spain	Vicente Ferreira, University of Zaragoza, Spain Excellent	Vicente Ferreira, University of Zaragoza, Spain Good	Vicente Ferreira, University of Zaragoza, Spain Average	Vicente Ferreira, University of Zaragoza, Spain Fair	Vicente Ferreira, University of Zaragoza, Spain Poor
Christine Pascal, Nomacorc, France	Christine Pascal, Nomacorc, France Excellent	Christine Pascal, Nomacorc, France Good	Christine Pascal, Nomacorc, France Average	Christine Pascal, Nomacorc, France Fair	Christine Pascal, Nomacorc, France Poor
Alexandre Pons, University of Bordeaux, France	Alexandre Pons, University of Bordeaux, France Excellent	Alexandre Pons, University of Bordeaux, France Good	Alexandre Pons, University of Bordeaux, France Average	Alexandre Pons, University of Bordeaux, France Fair	Alexandre Pons, University of Bordeaux, France Poor
Jean-Michel Salmon, Institut National de Recherche Agronomique (INRA), France	Jean-Michel Salmon, Institut National de Recherche Agronomique (INRA), France Excellent	Jean-Michel Salmon, Institut National de Recherche Agronomique (INRA), France Good	Jean-Michel Salmon, Institut National de Recherche Agronomique (INRA), France Average	Jean-Michel Salmon, Institut National de Recherche Agronomique (INRA), France Fair	Jean-Michel Salmon, Institut National de Recherche Agronomique (INRA), France Poor

Question Title

* 2. Please rate the following presenter information.

	Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
Presenters were well prepared and organized.	Presenters were well prepared and organized. Strongly Agree	Presenters were well prepared and organized. Agree	Presenters were well prepared and organized. Neutral	Presenters were well prepared and organized. Disagree	Presenters were well prepared and organized. Strongly Disagree
Presenters were knowledgeable about subject matter.	Presenters were knowledgeable about subject matter. Strongly Agree	Presenters were knowledgeable about subject matter. Agree	Presenters were knowledgeable about subject matter. Neutral	Presenters were knowledgeable about subject matter. Disagree	Presenters were knowledgeable about subject matter. Strongly Disagree
Presenters’ style was clear and effective.	Presenters’ style was clear and effective. Strongly Agree	Presenters’ style was clear and effective. Agree	Presenters’ style was clear and effective. Neutral	Presenters’ style was clear and effective. Disagree	Presenters’ style was clear and effective. Strongly Disagree
Presenters stimulated interest and discussion.	Presenters stimulated interest and discussion. Strongly Agree	Presenters stimulated interest and discussion. Agree	Presenters stimulated interest and discussion. Neutral	Presenters stimulated interest and discussion. Disagree	Presenters stimulated interest and discussion. Strongly Disagree
Presenters were responsive to participants.	Presenters were responsive to participants. Strongly Agree	Presenters were responsive to participants. Agree	Presenters were responsive to participants. Neutral	Presenters were responsive to participants. Disagree	Presenters were responsive to participants. Strongly Disagree
Visual aids were useful and appropriate.	Visual aids were useful and appropriate. Strongly Agree	Visual aids were useful and appropriate. Agree	Visual aids were useful and appropriate. Neutral	Visual aids were useful and appropriate. Disagree	Visual aids were useful and appropriate. Strongly Disagree