Corrections for Allan Hayward's review

Thanks for detailed review, I really appreciate you taking your time!

Here is an update for the corrections been done:

Syntax:
1. Page Numbering – The use of roman numerals for the cover pages should not flow into the Arabic numbering used on the body of the proposal. Restart the Arabic numbering at page 1 where you have page 4 now.

Good catch, corrected

2. General – Proposal guidelines from professor specified 12pt text and double spacing.

I would argue about the general comment about the font size and spacing. It was a recommendation during lecture and not a requirement as the document does not say anything specific on the font size and/or style. I used template for technical paper acceptance guidelines.

3. Page 5 – First paragraph, second sentence – “number” should be “numbers”

The word is in correct form, however, rephrasing definitely needed for clarity.

4. Page 5 – Third paragraph – After traffic add the word “conditions”, After commutes add “have become”. Change “conjunction” to “junction”. Delete “certain” from last sentence

Thanks, corrected!

5. Page 6 – Change the word “harmonization” to “harmonized” is several locations. Last paragraph, change “initiative” to “innovation”. Change “fully” to “full, ”.

Thanks, corrected!

6. Page 9 – First paragraph, change “The system that we design will…” to The system design will…”

Re-phrased.

7. Page 11 – the second paragraph indicates three weeks for implementation but the gnat chart seems to show 4 weeks.

The dates allowed for implementation are from 03/02 to 03/22, which is three calendar weeks, with 15 business days. So the reference to time line is correct. I am kind of confused where four weeks come from. JUnit testing does run for about four calendar weeks.

Disclaimer – Being an engineer my proof reading skills are not the best. Consider having someone with real writing skills look at this proposal for grammar, spelling and punctuation.

LOL, Thanks!