From: Gabriele Garavini (garavini@in2p3.fr)
Date: Mon May 09 2005 - 14:34:19 PDT
Dear All,
I just got a short and positive review of the paper on 99ac, I'll
implement the changes required by the referee and
make the new version circulate to you as soon as possible.
Thank you again for the excellent job done with this paper.
Cheers
Gabriele
Begin forwarded message:
> From: jsg@astro.wisc.edu
> Date: May 9, 2005 11:22:13 PM CEST
> To: garavini@in2p3.fr
> Cc: AJ-MS204680@mss.uchicago.edu, aj@astro.wisc.edu, jsg@astro.wisc.edu
> Subject: Referee Report for AJ Manuscript #204680
> Reply-To: aj@astro.wisc.edu, AJ-MS204680@mss.uchicago.edu,
> jsg@astro.wisc.edu
>
> Dear Dr. Garavini,
>
> Your manuscript,
>
> Manuscript #: 204680:
> Title: Spectroscopic Observations and Analysis of the Unusual Type Ia
> SN 1999ac
> Authors: G. Garavini, G. Aldering A. Amadon, R. Amanullah P. Astier,
> C. Balland, G. Blanc, A. Conley, T. Dahlen, S. E. Deustua R. Ellis S.
> Fabbro, V. Fadeyev, X. Fan, G. Folatelli, B. Frye, E. L. Gates, R.
> Gibbons, G. Goldhaber, B. Goldman, A. Goobar, D. E. Groom, J.
> Haissinski, D. Hardin, I. Hook, D. A. Howell, S. Kent, A. G. Kim, R.
> A. Knop, M. Kowalski, N. Kuznetsova, B. C. Lee C. Lidman, J. Mendez,
> G. J. Miller, M. Moniez, M. Mouchet, A. Mourao, H. Newberg, S. Nobili,
> P. E. Nugent, R. Pain, O. Perdereau, S. Perlmutter, R. Quimby, N.
> Regnault, J. Rich, G. T. Richards, P. Ruiz-Lapuente, B. E. Schaefer,
> K. Schahmaneche, E. Smith, A. L. Spadafora, V. Stanishev, R. C.
> Thomas, N. A. Walton, L. Wang, and W. M. Wood-Vasey
>
> was openly refereed by Dr. Mark Phillips, who has returned the
> comments included at the end of this message. The referee is favorably
> disposed to your paper but made some recommendations for improvement
> in the manuscript. I urge you to take the referee's comments fully
> into account in revising your paper.
>
> When you send a revised manuscript, please outline the revisions you
> have made in response to the referee's comments in a cover letter.
> Please submit your response as a plain text (ASCII) file when you
> upload the revised paper. Citing each referee's comment immediately
> followed by your response to that particular comment would be
> particularly helpful.
>
> The new AJ Web-based Peer Review system (WPR) is up and running, and
> your manuscript has been processed by the University of Chicago Press.
> Because Press staff often correct minor LaTeX errors in manuscripts,
> we ask that you download the manuscript file to make your revisions.
> The file is named ms.tex and is available for download from
> http://mss.uchicago.edu/AJ/. Please use this file to make your
> revisions. This will help us process your paper faster by saving the
> time and effort of duplicating any corrections UCP made to your
> original submission.
>
> Submit your revised manuscript, all figures, and cover letter on the
> WPR site. To access your files, you will need the username and
> password sent to you in an earlier email. Contact
> aj-help@mss.uchicago.edu for technical assistance if you have
> difficulty accessing your paper.
>
> Regards,
> Jay Gallagher, Editor
> THE ASTRONOMICAL JOURNAL
>
> Phone & Fax: (608) 265-6005
> Email: aj@astro.wisc.edu
> http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJ/
>
> *********************Referee's
> Report*************************************
>
> This paper presents optical spectra of the spectroscopically- and
> photometrically-peculiar type Ia SN 1999ac. The data are of generally
> good
> signal-to-noise, and provide excellent wavelength and temporal
> coverage of
> this interesting object. The presentation of the data is orderly, and
> the
> paper is generally well-written, although not much of an attempt is
> made at
> interpretation. It's too bad that the authors decided to split off the
> optical photometry into a second paper since, I feel, we are left with
> only
> a partial picture of the full peculiarity of this supernova.
> Nevertheless,
> in the interest of getting the spectra published, I recommend that the
> paper
> be accepted for publication.
>
> I have a few minor comments and suggested changes which I would hope
> that
> the authors would take into consideration before publishing. It is not
> necessary for me to see a revised version of this paper.
>
> 1. Page 4, 4th line from top: There is a blank line after this line
> that
> shouldn't be there.
>
> 2. Page 4, 1st paragraph: NGC 6063 is a "Scd" galaxy (not "ScD")
>
> 3. Page 5, last sentence: This sentence suggests that the spectra of
> 1999ac
> in Fig. 2 have been corrected for telluric features, whereas those in
> Fig. 3
> have not. I don't see any difference between the SN 1999ac spectra in
> the
> figures. On the other hand, the spectrum in Fig. 4 does appear to be
> corrected. I'm confused.
>
> 4. Section 2: There should be a paragraph here describing the
> accuracy of
> the spectrophotometric calibration.
>
> 5. Page 9, line 3 of 2nd-to-last paragraph: "were C II" should be
> "where C II"
>
> 6. Page 10, line 3 of "Day -9" subsection: Is there a physical
> justification
> for using a higher blackbody temperature to fit this spectrum than was
> used
> in fitting the Day -15 spectrum?
>
> 7. Page 12, 2nd paragraph of section 5.1.2: The double minima of the
> Ca II
> H&K profiles of SNe 1994D and 1999aa are mentioned, but no explanation
> is
> offered for this phenomenon. Is the Nugent et al. 1997 (ApJ, 485, 812)
> identification of the blue component as Si II 3858 still the accepted
> explanation? If so, I suggest that this be mentioned. Also, have the
> measurements in Fig. 10 taken the splitting into account (for those SNe
> which show it)?
>
> 8. Page 14, section 6.1: The small value of R(Si II) measured for
> 1999ac
> is consistent with the fact that it showed strong Fe III absorption at
> early epochs (providing evidence of higher temperature). So what
> appears to
> be inconsistent with the trend in Fig. 13 is the value of the decline
> rate
> (dm15(B)). As mentioned earlier in the paper, SN 1999ac was
> photometrically
> peculiar in showing a slow rise to maximum, but a much faster decline
> after
> maximum. So maybe for this SN Ia, the decline rate after maximum is
> not a
> good indicator of luminosity (or temperature).
>
> 9. Page 14, section 6.2: If you agree with what I say in point 6, then
> using dm15(B) as a proxy for R(Si II) may not be a good idea for
> 1999ac.
>
> 10. References: These need to be checked more carefully. Some of the
> references are incomplete (e.g., Jeffery & Branch 1990, Phillips et
> al. 2002).
>
> 11. Fig. 1: In this digital age, isn't it possible to rotate this
> image so
> that N is at the top, and E at the left?
>
> 12. Table 1: The FWHM resolution of the spectra is a more informative
> quantity than the number of Angstroms per pixel.
>
> 13. Table 1: The "f" subscripts on the Lambda Range and Delta Lambda
> column heads are confusing. Presumably the authors are saying that
> these
> quantities are in the rest frame of the SN, but the footnote says "Rest
> Frame Days"
>
>
========================================================
LPNHE - IN2P3 - CNRS University of Paris VI and Paris VII
4 place Jussieu, Tour 33 - Rez de chaussee 75252 Paris Cedex 05 France
Phone: +33 1 44 27 41 54, e-mail: garavini@in2p3.fr
ICQ: 148161845, AIM: gabrigaravini
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed May 11 2005 - 11:54:42 PDT