From: clidman (clidman@eso.org)
Date: Fri Apr 11 2003 - 10:09:24 PDT
Hi Rob,
In table 29, you have listed the "NTTA" as a telescope that was used to take data on
2000fr (aka Beethoven). This should be NTT.
On page 36, you should specify that SUSI2 was the instrument that was used. If some
NTT data was used in the light curve fits, it should be listed on page 7.
On page 7, the reader becomes aware that ground based imaging data is used
in the analysis. I found the first sentence (the one starting with "Ground-based") to be a bit
too abrupt. Perhaps, it would be better to say " In addition to the HST data, ground based
data were taken with...: and then list the telescopes as you have done in section 2.2.
On page 15. choosy -> critical
On page 15. Three SNe are omitted from from the fits because they are stretch outliers, but only two
are listed.
In regards to the discussion of the figures, I think it is sufficient to do better with the labelling.
For example:
- clearly label which fit is being plotted on the figure itself. This is done in figure 4, but it was
not done in figure 5. In the latter case, this means that you should label the plots with fits 4/5 for
the left panel and fits 4/6 for the right panel.
- The number of HST SNe in the left panel of figure 5 does not agree with what is stated in the
caption, ie 10 vs. 11.
- in the caption to figure 5, indicate that these plots use SNe that are correctly individually for
extinction.
- figure 6 should come first. If fit 3 is our choice fit, then we should show fit 3 only. Fit 6 is already
displayed in figure 5.
Cheers, Chris.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Apr 11 2003 - 09:10:00 PDT