From: Greg Aldering (aldering@panisse.lbl.gov)
Date: Thu May 01 2003 - 19:38:28 PDT
Hi Rob,
Here are more edits as I continue to read the paper. In these section,
more important things I found include:
p6 In discussing the photometry, you don't mention bad pixel masking -
did you have to do that? Either way, it is worth mentioning
p6 There is still no mention of whether ground and space photometry
is consistent. Is there *anything* you can say about that?
p9 I began to think the section 2.3 should preceed section 2.2 since
at the end of section 2.2 you point people to the final results
without yet having mentioned color and k-corrections.
p14 We never say why we might expect the U-B dispersion to be higher.
This is worth a sentance:
"We might expect a larger dispersion in intrinsic $U$-$B$ due to
e.g., metallicity effects \citep{1998ApJ...495..617H,2000ApJ...530..966L}.
The low-redshift $U$-band photometry may also have unmodeled scatter
e.g., related to the lack of extensive UV SN spectroscopy for
$K$-corrections"
@ARTICLE{2000ApJ...530..966L,
author = {{Lentz}, E.~J. and {Baron}, E. and {Branch}, D. and {Hauschildt}, P.~H. and
{Nugent}, P.~E.},
title = "{Metallicity Effects in Non-LTE Model Atmospheres of Type IA Supernovae}",
journal = {\apj},
year = 2000,
month = feb,
volume = 530,
pages = {966-976},
}
@ARTICLE{1998ApJ...495..617H,
author = {{Hoeflich}, P. and {Wheeler}, J.~C. and {Thielemann}, F.~K.},
title = "{Type IA Supernovae: Influence of the Initial Composition on the Nucleosynthesis, Light Curves, and Spectra and Consequences for the Determination of Omega M and Lambda}",
journal = {\apj},
year = 1998,
month = mar,
volume = 495,
pages = {617-+},
}
Now, on to the minor fixes:
p6: "... 6 summed ..." ---> "... 6 previously summed ..."
"... in our images ..." ---> "... in our PC images ..."
"... WFPC2 allowed ..." ---> "... WFPC2 together allowed ..."
"... good to only ..." ---> "... good to ..."
"... flux value, much ..." ---> "... flux value --- much ..."
After "... of point sources."
add \citep{1999PASP..111.1559W, dolphin2000, dolphin2003}
@ARTICLE{1999PASP..111.1559W,
author = {{Whitmore}, B. and {Heyer}, I. and {Casertano}, S.},
title = "{Charge-Transfer Efficiency of WFPC2}",
journal = {\pasp},
year = 1999,
month = dec,
volume = 111,
pages = {1559-1576},
adsurl = {http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1999PASP..111.1559W&db_key=AST},
adsnote = {Provided by the NASA Astrophysics Data System}
}
dolphin2003, http://www.stsci.edu/hst/HST_overview/documents/calworkshop/workshop2002/CW2002_dolphin
After "... total exposure time ..." add
"This assumption is correction most of the time, with the exception of
the few instances where Earthshine affects part of an orbit."
p7: "... were redone for this ..." ---> "... were redone in this ..." to
avoid overuse of "for"
"... high and low-redshifts ... " ---> "... high- and low-redshifts ..."
"... $R$ and $I$ band ... " ---> "... $R$- and $I$-band ..."
In sentance starting with "Stretch ..." but the reference at the end
of the sentance.
Before "Each of these ..." add
"Comparison of our $U$-band template shows good agreement with the
new $U$-band photometry from \citet{jha2002} at the relavent
epochs."
Start a new paragraph with "Due to a ..."
"... peak R and I band magnitudes ..." --->
"... peak $R$- and $I$- magnitudes"
Later in same sentance are other cases of R and V which should be $R$ and
$V$.
In the sentance beginning "Some of the ..." I wasn't sure whether it is
only ground-based data that you are refering to. If so, please
clarify that.
p9: "... Both R and I band zero ..." --->
"... Both $R$- and $I$- zero"
"... the low and high-redshift ..." --->
"... the low- and high-redshift ..."
"... high-precision measurements ~40-50 ..." --->
"... high-precision measurements more than ~40-50 ..."
"... template fit procedure ..." --->
"... template-fit procedure ..."
"... any point ..." --->
"... any lightcurve point ..."
Ending paragraph of section 2.2 should reference the figures directly,
e.g. "Figures 11 and 12" (or wherever they are now).
"... icolor ..." --->
"... color ..."
In sentance beginning with "In order to perform ..." move the Kim
reference to the end of the sentance.
p10: "... about the best fit ..." --->
"... about the best-fit ..."
"... color outliers are removed ..."
"... color outliers from \citet{jha2002} are removed ..."
p12: "199fG" should be 199??
p13: "... Bessell $R$ and $I$ band ..." --->
"... Bessell $R$- and $I$-band ..."
"... values where then ..." --->
"... values were then ..." --->
"... conslusions ..." --->
"... conclusions ..."
"... supernoave ..." --->
"... supernovae ..."
"... 1995al1995aq ..." missing comma?
"... confirmation and one ... and was removed from ..." --->
"... confirmation. One ... is removed here, as it was in ..."
"... we omit two supernovae are outliers ..." --->
"... we omit two outliers ..."
"... 3 - $\sigma$ ..." --->
"... 3$\sigma$ ..." --->
"... all supernovae from ..." --->
"... all new supernovae from ..."
p14: "... 5 log Ho ..." needs a {\rm log } to match eq. (3).
"... nuisance parameters M and a ..." --->
"... nuisance parameters, M and a ..." --->
You need to justify the parameter ranges over which probabilities were
calculated. I know you had something in there earlier, like "contains
99.9% of the probability" which I complained didn't have enough 9's
to be convincing. Do you have any idea how much probability is missed
by your bounds?
The sentance "An additional two ..." seems redundant since you already
introduced script-M and alpha. However, you do need to give the
parameter-space ranges for script-M and alpha.
"... should be included ..." --->
"... should already be included ..."
"... see after ..." --->
"... found after ..."
"... dependence of the effective on $R_R$ ..." --->
"... dependence on $z$ of the effective $R_R$ ...
Ok, I'll read the rest of the paper tonight as give comments. You can
take care of these if you have any nervous-energy to burn after hearing
that Tonry et al is out. I guess I'm getting into a lot of detail, but
then I've seen many of the recent drafts. By the way, Peter noticed
that the systematics table is missing and that some figures are not
refered to correctly, like Figure 8 is refered to as Figure 5 in the
systematics section.
Also, I guess I would recommend putting the Percival 2dFGRS+HSTKP
contraints on the OM,w fits. Also, given the aspect ratio, Figure 7
might fit better if it were 3 wide by 2 high.
Cheers,
Greg
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu May 01 2003 - 19:38:29 PDT