[GSoC Application Review] Application Review for Wayland Project

[Armin Krezović]

On 21.3.2016 14:40, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Mar 2016 13:43:06 +0100
> Armin Krezović <armin.krezovic at fet.ba> wrote:
>
>> On 21.3.2016 8:57, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
>>> On Sat, 19 Mar 2016 23:33:21 +0100
>>> Armin Krezović <armin.krezovic at fet.ba> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 13.03.2016 18:22, Armin Krezović wrote:
>>>>> Hello Pekka, Quentin and Kat (sorry, don't know the real name yet).
>>>>>
>>>>> Pekka and Quentin have volounteered to review my GSoC application
>>>>> draft for the Wayland project. Pekka also suggested to add Kat to
>>>>> the list of reviewers.
>>>>>
>>>>> As suggested, I've used Google Docs to create a document. You can
>>>>> access it at:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bBgH8h9UiAPkipGjxHePnmcVU73Tef033-xojVWIhCU/
>>>>>
>>>>> Embedded below is the text from document, so you can comment on
>>>>> individual sentences/paragraphs/etc if needed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you in advance and looking forward to your reply.
>>>>>
>>>>> Armin.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>
>>>> The proposal has been updated to reflect all the feedback I've
>>>> received so far. I didn't include the text in the mail this time.
>>>>
>>>> Pekka and Quentin should be able to comment on the Google document
>>>> which is available at the URL referenced above.
>>>>
>>>> Please let me know if any other adjustments are needed.
>>>>
>>>> Highlights:
>>>>
>>>> - Completely rewrite Project Scope paragraph to include more details.
>>>> - Improve wording in Dedication paragraph so I sound more dedicated :).
>>>> - Extend Dedication paragraph to include additional information on
>>>>     how the project will be realized.
>>>>
>>>> If all goes well with this one, I plan to submit it on Monday, as
>>>> said in one of the replies.
>>>
>>> Hi Armin,
>>>
>>
>> Salut,
>>
>>> in "dedication" you refer to "the first part of my proposal" but that
>>> is not too clear, I am left to guess what you mean.
>
>>
>> Now that you mention it, it looks kinda confusing. How about now? I've
>> included 3 tasks in a list so it's more clear which is the first one.
>
> Much better, now I think I can guess right. :-)
>
> I could still nitpick on not defining what "parts" are, since the first
> occurrence of the word "part" is in the dedication section and nothing
> is called "a part" before that. ;-)
>
> If you wrote "That includes three parts:" and numbered the bullet
> points, that would make it perfectly clear. Then you can refer to part
> 1, part 2, etc.
>
>
> Thanks,
> pq
>

How about "the first item listed in my proposal" instead of the first 
part? You can check the modified doc.

Thanks, Armin