Comments on HST paper

From: Tony Spadafora (ALSpadafora@lbl.gov)
Date: Mon Feb 24 2003 - 13:19:29 PST

  • Next message: Alex Kim: "retry of retry of comments on paper"

    Hi Rob,

    I've marked up the attached pdf with corrections (mostly wording and typos).

    Here are some more general comments:

    2.1
    should we say more about the discovery - e.g. were the SNe premax?

    How good is Ia Identfication - need to say some the basis of this, maybe
    cite elsewhere.

    It would good to give a brief description of the relevant aspects of
    WFPC before PSF fitting - e.g pixel size

    what is x0, y0 in PSF fit

    Table 1: SN 9878 - not in IAU?

    2.2
    Need to show at least some lightcurves
     
    Need to show goodness of fit in tables. show fit in lightcurve plot

    2.3
    I know you iterate, but it seems like this should come BEFORE the
    lightcurve fit. Or, before 2.2, give some overview saying this will be
    discussed in the following section.

    colors - is there any information from the ground colors - do we have them?

    intrisic colors - is this consistent with Serena's paper (I haven't read
    that yet)

    3.1
    Can you say briefly at the outset what the difference in procedure is
    w.r.t. P99?

    "Fit 3" is mysterious when first mentioned

    Fig 2 - the one high point seems consistent with the curve - why do you
    later exclude it? should quote sigma or probability if it really unlikely

    I had to read this section twice to see what the conclusion was
    (consistency of mean E(B-V) - maybe restate it at the end?

    3.2
    in caption, say what the top/bottom panels are. Top panel is a blur of
    points - not useful. bottom: hard to see the new data - maybe show then
    first ALONE, then with other data

    fig 6 - figures say "10 SNe", caption says "11". I assume the figure is wrong.

    4.
    the introductory part (ie. before 4.1) is just discussion and kind of
    weak - and doesn't seem like it belongs in a results paper. Is there
    any analysis here? I think it should be in a review talk, not here. The
    only issue is Omega_M =0.12 - this low value merits more discussion.

    general: no dash in WFPC2

    -Tony

    -- 
    Tony Spadafora                                ALSpadafora@lbl.gov 
    Physics Division                              Tel: (510) 495-2316 
    Lawrence Berkeley National Lab                FAX: (510) 486-6738 
    1 Cyclotron Road BLDG 50R5032
    Berkeley, CA 94720-8160
    
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Feb 24 2003 - 13:19:43 PST