From: Christophe Balland (christophe.balland@ias.u-psud.fr)
Date: Wed Mar 09 2005 - 03:33:00 PST
Dear Gabriele,
Here are a few comments on the draft paper on 1999ac.
Cheers,
Christophe
-----
Please correct my affiliation:
- C. Balland (1,6) (and not (2,6) as 2 refers to Stokholm University!)
- Please, for 6 put: "Universite Paris-Sud and APC, 11 Place Marcelin
Berthelot, F-75231 Paris Cedex 05"
Comments on draft paper:
In section 2 (page 7), you mention (twice) 13 optical spectra and
refer to table 1, but there are 14 spectra listed in this table.
There are two +2 days spectra. Given the spectral range, this
seems to be the NOT +2 days spectrum that is plotted in Fig. 2, but
it should be indicated clearly.
On page 8, end of section 2: "their effect can be seen by comparing
Fig 2 with Fig 3": you can not COMPARE Fig 2 and Fig 3 with respect
to the effect of telluric lines as both figures show spectra before
telluric correction.
Begining of sec. 3: "Figure 2 presents the 13 fully reduced spectra":
precise which +2 days spectrum (see remark above).
End of following paragraph: you refer to Si II 6100 Ang absorption
and the next line to Si II lambda 6355 (and later as well), I suggest
you homogenize the notation for this feature (Si II lambda 6355 is fine).
On page 10: The depression redward of the Si II 6100 ang. feature
in the spectrum of 99ac "echoing one visible in the spectrum of 90N"
it is also clearly visible in the spectrum of 94D.
Last paragraph of sec. 3: "The contribution from FeII in the region
4000-5000 ang. appears weaker than in 94D and 90N": this is unclear
to me. Do you mean the FeII blend around 5000 ? In that case, you should
label it in Fig. 3. Or do you mean FeIII or SiII ? Even so, I don't find
these features systematically weaker in 99ac than in 94D and 90N.
On page 12: Begining of section Day -15:
"choosing Tbb=11,200 K reproduces a satisfactory reproduction":
put rather something like "allows one to reproduce well ..."
- "assists in producing reasonable line profiles": maybe "helps in
producing ..." sounds better ?
Top of page 18: "we will come back to this point later in the
analysis": it seems to me (but maybe I missed it) that you never
explicitely come back to this point later.
On page 20, section6, 2 lines before sec. 6.1: Garavini et al. (2004),
and not "(Garavini et a., 2004)".
-In table 5, some error is given in parenthesis, is this a typical
"1-sigma" error ?
- Recall briefly which class of objects the symbols of Benetti
correspond to (filled squares, open squares, crosses). This would help the
reading of the figures.
On page 21: just before sec. 6.2: (Folatelli 2004) instead of Folatelli
(2004).
- sec. 6.2: In fact, you plot v10 versus Deltam15, not the opposite.
"In Figure 14, we plot ...": same remark
- sec 6.3: same remark (it is vdot versus Deltam15)
On page 22: first line: "...correlation with Deltam15. Fast ..."
(put a dot after Deltam15, not a comma)
- vdot versus Deltam15 (not the opposite)
- The corresponding plot is shown in Figure 15, not 14.
- In table 5, an error is given for vdot, where does it come from ?
- sec. 6.4: the plot is shown in Figure 16, not 15
- "supernovae" should replace "supernova" in two occurences
- 6th line of sec 6.4: "i.e." instead of "i.g."
- line before last: "It also should be noted that ..." (suppress one
"also")
On page 23: last paragraph of conclusion: "We have presented ... R(SiII),
v10(SiII), vdot and R(SiII)": suppress second R(SiII).
- "v10(SiII) versus Deltam15"
- "supernovae" instead of "supernova"
Figures:
- Figure 2: indicate which +2days spectrum has been plotted
- Figure 3, 7A, 8A: in the labelling of lines: sometimes, "lambda"
does not appear but is replaced by "l". You should correct it.
- Figure 4, 6: legend: "Synthetic spectrum ..." instead of "Synthetic
spectra"
- Figure 14: legend: "Plot of v10(SiII) versus Deltam15"
- Figure 15: legend: "Plot of vdot versus Deltam15"
Tables:
- Table 1: again there are 14 entries as opposed to 13 stated in the text
- Table 5: a comment on the error given would be nice (at least for vdot).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Mar 09 2005 - 03:33:53 PST