mail 01, publication collab

sup dude

i spend some time looking at the text in detail today. the first thing that hits across is that there is no people/ individuals mentioned whatsoever on the document. if every section has to be or has been looked at by specific ngo’s their respective association has to be listed. who from all these ngo’s are responsible for the statements has to be evident.

secondly the text in itself. it needs to be proofed. things like consistency of bmc or mcgm has to be checked. every section gives like a zillion stats but there isn’t any references to the reports or the respective study. this brings me to the fact that you need a bibliography, glossary and abbreviations section to the document. this is a task someone from an academic position needs to do. some sentences here and there needs a bit of revision. change the language a bit.

reports have a definitive format and to an extend those needs to be adhered. what is this report? why is this report being made? who are the people/ profiles of the individuals who have contributed to it. profile of yuva. mandate of the project. the stage of which the project is at. basically what is so credible about this document that i should take it seriously.

section numbering. clause numbering. if you see the udri letters its easy to go back to any clause for questioning. here in your case there is no basis on which i can go back to any point without significant effort. you need to reffer other documents to see how its done is the london plan 2011 . i have a problem on how you have looked at the document structure. towards a elements i would incorporate into the proposals.

right now the existing text is about 60-65% complete. this is excluding your translation and gaothan work to be done and section writing. i see just getting the text together to be a month’s task in itself. largely sufficient work still pending. and this is only this document. when you dont have money i think it would be better of thinking of a designed publication when there is a bit more funds. all the statistics you mention need to be illustrated. right now there is one distorted map.

i see a lot of problems only sir. there is a whole lot of mention of the elu stage work in the report. it would be better if you think of a yuva dp project publication exercise instead of this. if i have to be talking to your boss too i think i would have this to say. the effort you want to put in it isn’t worth the content available.

call me whenever.

isaac