Team's Response

No response provided.

The 'Original' Bug

[The team marked this bug as a duplicate of the following bug]

AddressBook references not removed in DG

Note from the teaching team: This bug was reported during the Part II (Evaluating Documents) stage of the PE. You may reject this bug if it is not related to the quality of documentation.
page 6

page 9

2 other instances on pages 8 and 10.

No other mention of AddressBook, rather distracting as application is a patient database and has no relevance to AddressBook. Could perhaps consider naming it something else like PatientBook :)

below is the value proposition. no mention of "Address" here, might leave the reader wondering where "AddressBook" came from.

_{[original: nus-cs2103-AY2021S2/pe-interim#2898] [original labels: severity.Medium type.DocumentationBug]}

Their Response to the 'Original' Bug

[This is the team's response to the above 'original' bug]

Thank you for the find. We noticed that several of our reported bugs have to do with elements of the original AB3 documentation still being in the our DG. These wrong namings and AB3 references will indeed confuse readers.

We agree that the summation of all AB3 reference-related bugs indeed constitutes a medium severity level bug, but we view it to be reasonable to also lump the other references to AB3 within our DG within this single bug find.

For tutors: We have included within the duplicated issues bugs pointing out other parts of the DG having AB3 references.

Items for the Tester to Verify

:question: Issue duplicate status

Team chose to mark this issue as a duplicate of another issue (as explained in the Team's response above)

[ ] I disagree

Reason for disagreement: [replace this with your explanation]

:question: Issue severity

Team chose [severity.Medium] Originally [severity.Low]

[ ] I disagree