1. Proposal number : 17

2. Should this proposal be considered for the Best Proposal prize?  no

3. On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you rate the overall organization/clarity
of the proposal?  6

4. On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you rate the overall project idea?  8

Additional Comments and Questions

* Overall, is the proposal clear, concise, and well-organized?
This proposal is concise but not exceptionally clear.  The project idea is explained, but the actual implementation is not clearly defined.  Furthermore, this project does appear
to have significant merit because it does not present an adequate amount of broader applications.   The clarity of this proposal is also undermined by an abundance of grammatical
errors.  Typographical errors, missing punctuation, and distracting verb choices appear prominently throughout this proposal.  Before the final report is written, it is
recommended that a third party be enlisted to aid in the proof-reading stage.
The paper is clearly organized with an index and amply labeled section.  However, certain sections seem out of place.  For instance, the introduction begins with a statement about
the individual’s qualifications for the project.  Instead, a good proposal introduction should begin with a statement about the project itself.  Additionally, this introduction
needs to make a better case for the motivation of undertaking this endeavor.  Explaining that the project was chosen because of the proposer’s interest in music does not make a
strong enough case.

* Does the proposal meet the posted proposal guidelines?
There are several sections in this proposal that need to be expanded in order to sufficiently meet proposal guidelines.  In particular, the related work section needs a great deal
of expanding.  Sources are listed at the end of the proposal but appear nowhere in the paper itself.  The related work section would have greatly benefited from detailing these
referenced papers.  Additional recommendations will be made as the points are addressed.
* How does the project idea fit within the framework of Developmental Robotics?
Classifying instruments by their traditional orchestral families fits into the Developmental Robotics framework as follows.  For humans, instrument classification is taught at an
early age and children begin to observe the fundamental differences between each class.  Therefore, training a classifier to perform a similar task is fitting for the robotics
framework. 

* Describe what you like BEST about the project idea.
Using two components of timbre for analysis appears to be a promising method of learning instrument classification.  Initially, I did not fully understand how analyzing the attack
and decay of an audio signal would allow for proper classification.  After reviewing the terms; however, I found that they are attributes of timbre and are considered important in
terms of describing an instruments characteristics.  This idea for analysis itself differentiates this project from others that I have seen.  For that reason, I believe that it is
the best attribute of this project.
* Describe what you like LEAST about the project idea.
While I understand that a monophonic approach is being used in the interest of time.  I think that this project would possess more merit if some polyphonic sound was also
incorporated into the experiment.  For instance, one could attempt to combine two tones in order to see the effects on classification.  Such a combination could be analyzed in a
similar manner and may contain several interesting or unexpected results.

* Do you have any concerns about the project?
My primary concerns detailed in this review relate more to the structure of the proposal and not to the project itself.  It appears that this student knows what needs to be done
in order for this project to work.

* Does it seem doable in the remaining time?
I believe that this project has a manageable scope and should be completed by the end of the semester. 
* Does it seem too difficult?
Given the skillset of this student, this project does not appear too difficult to implement.

* Are there any major details left out?
The related works was the most glaring detail left out of this proposal.  Additionally, I would like to see a better description and explanation of the proposed AI system used in
this project.  Potential classification algorithms (Nal,ve Bayes, K-NN, etc), should have also been described in this proposal.

* Does the idea rely upon technologies that are not currently available?
All techniques outlined in this proposal appear to be readily available.

* Do you have any suggestions for improvement?
My primary suggestion is to spend a greater amount of time on the final report.  Unfortunately, successful projects can only be evaluated if they are written properly. 

* Do you have any suggestions for related work that should be cited?
Related work that is listed in the works cited should be detailed in the proposal because was difficult to discern what was actually contained in the bibliography.

* Any other comments or suggestions?
Overall, I found the topic outlined in this proposal to be quite interesting.  The main focus of this critique was on the proposal itself.  Therefore, do not take the comments as
a criticism on the idea of the proposal but instead on its structure and contents.