From: Gabriele Garavini (garavini@in2p3.fr)
Date: Mon Mar 14 2005 - 07:58:55 PST
Dear Chris, Dear All,
thank you for your comments. I've implemented them all and prepared a
new version of the paper
(supernovae.in2p3.fr/~garavini/papers).
Please note that I've also changed the title.
As Chris was mentioning the paper should be ready for the final 1 week
review from the whole collaboration before submission. BTW, the paper
is currently in a A&A template. Is this the Journal we are going to
submit the paper to?
Chris, please find the answers to your questions in the following.
> Abstract
> ========
>
> We might want to qualify the statement about the statistical
> significance of our claim that we do not detect evolution. I suggest
> that you add the phrase, "With this small sample, we find no ..."
------ I've made the change as you suggested -------
> Introduction
> ============
>
> The first three paragraphs of the introduction are still a bit weak.
> Reynald can help you with that.
>
> The 3rd and 4th sentences in the 5th paragraph seem to be out of place.
> The 3rd sentence should really go at the beginning of the 6th paragraph
> and the 4th sentence can be deleted, since the point of this
> sentence is discussed in the the 6th paragraph.
>
------- Reynald and myself work on the introduction and on the
conclusion with the aim to make it more readable ------------
> Section 2.1
> ===========
>
> 2nd paragraph. It may be worth mentioning why the error spectrum in
> important, i. e. we use it to estimate the errors in the quantities
> we compute.
>
------ I've made the change as you suggested -------
> Last paragraph
>
> "an light" -> "a light"
>
> "the supernova spectral features" -> "supernova spectral features"
>
------ I've made the change as you suggested -------
> Figure 1.
> ========
>
> Can you double check the rest frame wavelength scale. Some seem to be
> wrong. SN 2000 fr is one example. The 4000 Angstrom tick mark lies
> beyond the Si II line.
>
> The date for sn01go is covered by the plot.
------- thank you very much for checking carefully, I had a little bug
in the program. It should be ok now ---------
> Table 2.
> ========
>
> The columns describing the morphology of the features that are used to
> sub-type Ias should be moved so that they are next to the
> normal Ia column. I. e. move columns 6 and 7 next to column 3.
>
> The comments column can be deleted and the comments can be attached to
> the names of the features.
------ I've made the change as you suggested -------
> Section 3.1
> ===========
>
> Garavini et al 2004 should be Garavini et al. in prep. What is this
> paper by the way?
---------- I refer to the 99aa paper. In the grey band here I'm
plotting the same SNe as in that paper -----
> You should mention the results of Isobel's work in the 3rd paragraph.
> You should not plot the results on Fig 3., since her paper has not
> yet been accepted.
>
------------- Sorry I do not understand what you mean here. I refer to
Isobel paper already in the introduction, but I could do it again in
this section. Could you suggest me the sentence you have in mind?
Thanks.
Also, what is that I should not plot in Fig 3. Note I'm not using any
of her data. --------
> Section 3.2
> ===========
>
> I think that the first paragraph could be worded better. Try the
> following
>
> "Folatelli (2004b) defined quantities that are similar to the
> equivalent
> widths that are used in stellar spectroscopy. However, as they pointed
> out, in the case of supernova spectra, the relationship between these
> quantities and the physical conditions of the ejecta is complex.
> However, this does not prevent us from using these well defined
> quantities when comparing nearby and distant SN~Ia spectra. In the
> rest of this paper, we will refer to these quantities as equivalent
> widths (EW)."
>
> I wanted to avoid the clause "can not be used to derive physical
> information because of the lack of a real continuum to ..."
>
> In the 3rd paragraph, replace "poor data quality" with "noisy data"
------ I've made the change as you suggested -------
> Section 3.2.1
> =============
>
> The last sentence. By using a larger fitting region to analyse high-z
> SNe (I appreciate that this is necessary), you are adding a bias.
> If it is possible, it might be worth to work out how big this bias is
> and to replace the last sentence in this paragraph with an estimate
> of how big this bias is.
>
------- that is a bit complicated, any number I could come up with
would be arbitrary, depending to the actual lambda span and depending
on the actual feature the misidentification of the fitting region
occurs.
> Section 3.2.2
> =============
>
> "addiction" -> "addition"
>
> Section 3.2.3
> =============
>
> The systematic error caused by shifts in the fitting region is a
> possible systematic uncertainty (as you correctly point out in the
> caption to section 3.2.2). Whenever you mention this uncertainty, you
> should use the adjective possible. Indeed, when this
> uncertainty is included, the chi-sq values in table 5 are too good.
>
------ I've made the change as you suggested -------
> In the 4th paragraph, change "It has to be noted ..." with "We note
> ..."
> Move "before maximum light" before the verb "are".
>
> Delete the word "included".
>
> Add the following "clause" before the word "the deviation"
>
> " ... a simple chi-sq. tests shows that ..."
>
------ I've made the change as you suggested -------
> Section 3.3
> ===========
>
> Is it normal to propagate the uncertainty in the x-axis in this way?
>
------- to my knowledge this is the only way I could actually do it
------- Something similar is done while fitting the cosmology for
example!
> Table 5
> =======
>
> "only the statistical and systematic uncertainties"
>
------ I've made the change as you suggested -------
> Section 4
> =========
>
> Delete the vague last sentence in the second last paragraph.
>
>
----- after the rewording of the section done with Reynald the
conclusion read differently now.
>
>
> --
> European Southern Observatory
> Alonso de Córdova 3107, Vitacura
> Casilla 19001, Santiago 19
> CHILE
>
> Ph. +56 2 463 3106
> FAX +56 2 463 3001
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Mar 14 2005 - 08:00:13 PST