diff --git a/doc/Projects/EvaluationGrading/EvaluationForm.md b/doc/Projects/EvaluationGrading/EvaluationForm.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..d2bc5a936
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/Projects/EvaluationGrading/EvaluationForm.md
@@ -0,0 +1,164 @@
+# Template for evaluating and grading projects, with grading scale based on achieved points
+
+**Evaluation of project number:**
+
+**Name:**
+
+
+## Abstract
+*Abstract: accurate and informative? Total number of possible points: 5*
+
+Mark and comments:
+
+
+## Introduction
+*Introduction: status of problem and the major objectives. Total number of
+possible points: 10*
+
+Mark and comments:
+
+
+## Formalism
+*Formalism/methods: Discussion of the methods used and their basis/suitability.
+Total number of possible points 20*
+
+Mark and comments:
+
+
+## Code, implementation and testing
+*Code/Implementations/test: Readability of code, implementation, testing and
+discussion of benchmarks. Total number of possible points 20*
+
+Mark and comments:
+
+
+## Analysis
+*Analysis: of results and the effectiveness of their selection and presentation.
+Are the results well understood and discussed? Total number of possible points:
+20*
+
+Mark and comments:
+
+
+## Conclusions
+*Conclusions, discussions and critical comments: on what was learned about the
+method used and on the results obtained. Possible directions and future
+improvements? Total number of possible points: 10*
+
+Mark and comments:
+
+
+## Overall presentation:
+*Clarity of figures, tables, algorithms and overall presentation. Too much or too little? Total number of possible points: 10*
+
+Mark and comments:
+
+
+## Referencing
+*Referencing: relevant works cited accurately? Total number of possible points 5*
+
+Mark and comments:
+
+
+## Overall
+*Overall mark in points (maximum number of points per project is 100) and final possible final comments*
+
+
+## Grading of all projects
+*The final number of points is based on the average of all projects (including eventual additional points) and the grade follows the following table:*
+
+ * 92-100 points: A
+ * 77-91 points: B
+ * 58-76 points: C
+ * 46-57 points: D
+ * 40-45 points: E
+ * 0-39 points: F-failed
+
+## General guidelines on how to write a report
+
+### Some basic ingredients for a successful numerical project
+
+When building up a numerical project there are several elements you should think of, amongst these we take the liberty of mentioning the following:
+
+ * How to structure a code in terms of functions
+ * How to make a module
+ * How to read input data flexibly from the command line
+ * How to create graphical/web user interfaces
+ * How to write unit tests (test functions)
+ * How to refactor code in terms of classes (instead of functions only), in our case you think of a system and a solver class
+ * How to conduct and automate large-scale numerical experiments
+ * How to write scientific reports in various formats (LaTeX, HTML)
+
+
+The conventions and techniques outlined here will save you a lot of time when you incrementally extend software over time from simpler to more complicated problems. In particular, you will benefit from many good habits:
+
+ * New code is added in a modular fashion to a library (modules)
+ * Programs are run through convenient user interfaces
+ * It takes one quick command to let all your code undergo heavy testing
+ * Tedious manual work with running programs is automated,
+ * Your scientific investigations are reproducible, scientific reports with top quality typesetting are produced both for paper and electronic devices.
+
+
+
+
+### The report: how to write a good scienfitic/technical report
+What should it contain? A typical structure
+
+* An abstract where you give the main summary of your work
+ * An introduction where you explain the aims and rationale for the physics case and what you have done. At the end of the introduction you should give a brief summary of the structure of the report
+ * Theoretical models and technicalities. This is the methods section
+ * Results and discussion
+ * Conclusions and perspectives
+ * Appendix with extra material
+ * Bibliography
+
+Keep always a good log of what you do.
+
+### The report, the abstract
+
+The abstract gives the reader a quick overview of what has been done and the most important results. Try to be to the point and state your main findings.
+
+### The report, the introduction
+
+When you write the introduction you could focus on the following aspects
+
+ * Motivate the reader, the first part of the introduction gives always a motivation and tries to give the overarching ideas
+ * What I have done
+ * The structure of the report, how it is organized etc
+
+### The report, discussion of methods, implementation, codes etc
+
+ * Describe the methods and algorithms
+ * You need to explain how you implemented the methods and also say something about the structure of your algorithm and present some parts of your code
+ * You should plug in some calculations to demonstrate your code, such as selected runs used to validate and verify your results. The latter is extremely important!! A reader needs to understand that your code reproduces selected benchmarks and reproduces previous results, either numerical and/or well-known closed form expressions.
+
+
+
+### The report, results part
+
+ * Present your results
+ * Give a critical discussion of your work and place it in the correct context.
+ * Relate your work to other calculations/studies
+ * An eventual reader should be able to reproduce your calculations if she/he wants to do so. All input variables should be properly explained.
+ * Make sure that figures and tables should contain enough information in their captions, axis labels etc so that an eventual reader can gain a first impression of your work by studying figures and tables only.
+
+### The report, conclusions and perspectives
+
+ * State your main findings and interpretations
+ * Try as far as possible to present perspectives for future work
+ * Try to discuss the pros and cons of the methods and possible improvements
+
+
+### The report, appendices
+
+ * Additional calculations used to validate the codes
+ * Selected calculations, these can be listed with few comments
+ * Listing of the code if you feel this is necessary
+
+You can consider moving parts of the material from the methods section to the appendix. You can also place additional material on your webpage or GitHub page..
+
+### The report, references
+
+ * Give always references to material you base your work on, either scientific articles/reports or books.
+ * Refer to articles as: name(s) of author(s), journal, volume (boldfaced), page and year in parenthesis.
+ * Refer to books as: name(s) of author(s), title of book, publisher, place and year, eventual page numbers
diff --git a/doc/Projects/EvaluationGrading/EvaluationGrading.html b/doc/Projects/EvaluationGrading/EvaluationGrading.html
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..de44eaba2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/Projects/EvaluationGrading/EvaluationGrading.html
@@ -0,0 +1,114 @@
+Template for evaluating and grading projects, with grading scale based on achieved points
+Evaluation of project number:
+Name:
+Abstract
+Abstract: accurate and informative? Total number of possible points: 5
+Mark and comments:
+Introduction
+Introduction: status of problem and the major objectives. Total number of possible points: 10
+Mark and comments:
+
+Formalism/methods: Discussion of the methods used and their basis/suitability. Total number of possible points 20
+Mark and comments:
+Code, implementation and testing
+Code/Implementations/test: Readability of code, implementation, testing and discussion of benchmarks. Total number of possible points 20
+Mark and comments:
+Analysis
+Analysis: of results and the effectiveness of their selection and presentation. Are the results well understood and discussed? Total number of possible points: 20
+Mark and comments:
+Conclusions
+Conclusions, discussions and critical comments: on what was learned about the method used and on the results obtained. Possible directions and future improvements? Total number of possible points: 10
+Mark and comments:
+Overall presentation:
+Clarity of figures, tables, algorithms and overall presentation. Too much or too little? Total number of possible points: 10
+Mark and comments:
+Referencing
+Referencing: relevant works cited accurately? Total number of possible points 5
+Mark and comments:
+Overall
+Overall mark in points (maximum number of points per project is 100) and final possible final comments
+Grading of all projects
+The final number of points is based on the average of all projects (including eventual additional points) and the grade follows the following table:
+
+- 92-100 points: A
+- 77-91 points: B
+- 58-76 points: C
+- 46-57 points: D
+- 40-45 points: E
+- 0-39 points: F-failed
+
+General guidelines on how to write a report
+Some basic ingredients for a successful numerical project
+When building up a numerical project there are several elements you should think of, amongst these we take the liberty of mentioning the following:
+
+- How to structure a code in terms of functions
+- How to make a module
+- How to read input data flexibly from the command line
+- How to create graphical/web user interfaces
+- How to write unit tests (test functions)
+- How to refactor code in terms of classes (instead of functions only), in our case you think of a system and a solver class
+- How to conduct and automate large-scale numerical experiments
+- How to write scientific reports in various formats (LaTeX, HTML)
+
+The conventions and techniques outlined here will save you a lot of time when you incrementally extend software over time from simpler to more complicated problems. In particular, you will benefit from many good habits:
+
+- New code is added in a modular fashion to a library (modules)
+- Programs are run through convenient user interfaces
+- It takes one quick command to let all your code undergo heavy testing
+- Tedious manual work with running programs is automated,
+- Your scientific investigations are reproducible, scientific reports with top quality typesetting are produced both for paper and electronic devices.
+
+The report: how to write a good scienfitic/technical report
+What should it contain? A typical structure
+
+- An abstract where you give the main summary of your work
+- An introduction where you explain the aims and rationale for the physics case and what you have done. At the end of the introduction you should give a brief summary of the structure of the report
+- Theoretical models and technicalities. This is the methods section
+- Results and discussion
+- Conclusions and perspectives
+- Appendix with extra material
+- Bibliography
+
+Keep always a good log of what you do.
+The report, the abstract
+The abstract gives the reader a quick overview of what has been done and the most important results. Try to be to the point and state your main findings.
+The report, the introduction
+When you write the introduction you could focus on the following aspects
+
+- Motivate the reader, the first part of the introduction gives always a motivation and tries to give the overarching ideas
+- What I have done
+- The structure of the report, how it is organized etc
+
+The report, discussion of methods, implementation, codes etc
+
+- Describe the methods and algorithms
+- You need to explain how you implemented the methods and also say something about the structure of your algorithm and present some parts of your code
+- You should plug in some calculations to demonstrate your code, such as selected runs used to validate and verify your results. The latter is extremely important!! A reader needs to understand that your code reproduces selected benchmarks and reproduces previous results, either numerical and/or well-known closed form expressions.
+
+The report, results part
+
+- Present your results
+- Give a critical discussion of your work and place it in the correct context.
+- Relate your work to other calculations/studies
+- An eventual reader should be able to reproduce your calculations if she/he wants to do so. All input variables should be properly explained.
+- Make sure that figures and tables should contain enough information in their captions, axis labels etc so that an eventual reader can gain a first impression of your work by studying figures and tables only.
+
+The report, conclusions and perspectives
+
+- State your main findings and interpretations
+- Try as far as possible to present perspectives for future work
+- Try to discuss the pros and cons of the methods and possible improvements
+
+The report, appendices
+
+- Additional calculations used to validate the codes
+- Selected calculations, these can be listed with few comments
+- Listing of the code if you feel this is necessary
+
+You can consider moving parts of the material from the methods section to the appendix. You can also place additional material on your webpage or GitHub page..
+The report, references
+
+- Give always references to material you base your work on, either scientific articles/reports or books.
+- Refer to articles as: name(s) of author(s), journal, volume (boldfaced), page and year in parenthesis.
+- Refer to books as: name(s) of author(s), title of book, publisher, place and year, eventual page numbers
+
diff --git a/doc/Projects/EvaluationGrading/EvaluationGrading.pdf b/doc/Projects/EvaluationGrading/EvaluationGrading.pdf
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..740c4f6d8
Binary files /dev/null and b/doc/Projects/EvaluationGrading/EvaluationGrading.pdf differ