Re: EW paper draft (v 7.1)

From: Isobel Hook (imh@astro.ox.ac.uk)
Date: Mon Jan 12 2004 - 02:30:31 PST

  • Next message: clidman@eso.org: "Re: EW paper draft (v 7.1)"

    Hi Gaston,

    Thanks for addressing my comments.

    I agree that the data tables would be fine on the web only. Some journals
    will do this automatically - I once submitted a paper to A&A with some
    large data tables, and they told me they would only publish those in the
    electronic version of the paper. So I think it might be worth submitting
    the tables with the paper, so that they get archived somewhere properly.

    > - Yes, I have tried to plot the Delta_EW vs M_B for individual SNe. The
    > very first versions of the paper, before Section 5 appeared, included this
    > analysis. But again, the correlation was not as strong as the ones finally
    > presented.

    I just went back and looked at those. Actually I think they look pretty
    good and although they're not as strong at the one you've found for
    EW(2+3) they could be more useful because you only need one spectrum to
    place an object on the plot (at least for CaII IR and FeII 4800). I would
    encourage you to put those plots back in and give the equations of the
    fits.

    > - In my opinion, a plot of EW_(2+3) as a function of epoch wouldn't add
    > really that much substance to the analysis.

    I agree that it wont add to the analysis but since you go into quite a bit
    of detail on the EW(2+3) feature, I think its important to show the data
    that the analysis is based on.

    Cheers,
    Isobel.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Jan 12 2004 - 02:30:36 PST