Re: Evolution paper

From: Gabriele Garavini (garavini@in2p3.fr)
Date: Wed Mar 16 2005 - 10:16:40 PST

  • Next message: Tony Spadafora: "SCP Paper I: Spectral Evolution. Comment by 3/25/05."

    Dear Chris,

    thank you for your comments. I've implemented them and created a new
    draft (supernovae/~garavini/papers).
    I've changed the first and last paragraph of the paper trying to make
    them more readable.

    If we all agree, I would ask Tony to send the paper to the
    collaboration for a one week review.

    Thank you.
    All the best
    Gabriele

    On Mar 15, 2005, at 9:43 PM, Chris Lidman wrote:

    > Hi Gabriele,
    > Thanks for the new version.
    >
    > There was one point you have asked me to clarify. This I do below.
    >
    > There are some additional very minor points that I note here. None are
    > very significant and I think that the paper can be sent to the rest of
    > the collaboration to review.
    >
    > Minor points
    > ============
    >
    > I mildly object to adding "observed with the ESO VLT" in the title and
    > the abstract. It is unnecessary.
    >
    > Move "C. Lidman" to the second group of authors, i. e. the alphabetical
    > listing.
    >
    > I still find the first paragraph awkward. The other paragraphs in the
    > introduction are fine.
    >
    > Comment e to table 2 is too terse.
    >
    > p8. type Ia -> Type Ia
    >
    > p8. EW of "Fe II 4800" EWS (delete the last EWS)
    >
    > p10. Capitalize "we" in the first para.
    >
    > The last paragraph undersells your result somewhat.
    >
    > Cheers, Chris.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >>
    >>> 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. --------
    >>
    >
    > Isobel created a plot (Fig. 18 in her paper) that is very similar to
    > the
    > one in Fig. 3, and she concludes that there the CaII velocities of
    > high-z SNe are consistent with those measured for low-z SNe. I think
    > that you should mention this in the last paragraph of section 3.1.
    >
    > After the second sentence, you could add the following
    >
    > "A similar result was obtained by Hook et al. (2005)."
    >
    > In regards to using her data in figure 3, I understand that you have
    > not
    > used her data. Currently, I think that that is the correct thing to do.
    >
    >
    > --
    > European Southern Observatory
    > Alonso de Córdova 3107, Vitacura
    > Casilla 19001, Santiago 19
    > CHILE
    >
    > Ph. +56 2 463 3106
    > FAX +56 2 463 3001
    >
    >
    >
    ========================================================
    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 Mar 16 2005 - 10:16:51 PST