HST paper - Isobel's comments part #1

From: Isobel Hook (imh@astro.ox.ac.uk)
Date: Fri May 02 2003 - 07:44:29 PDT

  • Next message: Greg Aldering: "Re: pages 15-29"

    Hi Rob,

    I'm reading the paper carefully and have the following comments up to the
    end of section 3 (I'll get reading the rest now). None of these are
    essential to fix before submission. It looks really good so far!

    Cheers,
    Isobel.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Abstract: I still think it's odd to say in one sentence that O_M =0.21
    implies O_L=0.79 and then go on to give limits on w because the
    previous statement assumes w=-1.

    I would put the word "extinction" in the sentence where you first
    mention E(B-V) (many theorists wont know immediately what E(B-V) is!)

    Intro, first sentence:the series of papers culminated in 1999 not
    1998. What is the Hawkins paper? It is not in the reference list (and
    I didn't think Hawkins worked on that sort of thing?! - is this the
    Minty et al reference?)

    Typos - an extra "so" in the sentence starting "With these advantages"
            "These colour usually dominate.."
             I thought the ESO 3.6m spectrograph was called EFOSC (not WFOSC)

    When discussing HST filters is says "At the redshifts for the SNe in
    this paper the filters used approximate the ground-based R-band" -
    this is true regardless of the redshift.

    In the text after equation 1, the background is described as a
    "constant" background - say "temporally constant" otherwise it sounds
    as though you mean it's flat spatially.

    2.2 lightcurve fits: you mention 4 parameters (date of B max etc)
      including R-I colour. The colour must be at a particular epoch?

    2.3 : typo "icolor corrections"

    Paragraph starting "Given a template spectrum.." you then talk about
    making further corrections for each supernova. You should say here
    that you are now talking about SNe being used for the cosmology fits
    (i.e. you are not talking about the ones used to make the template any
    more).

    Iterative K-correction & lightcurve fitting: what tolerance was used
    to say that the fits have converged?

    2.4 supernova subsets: removed objects with >4sigma from "Best fit
      flat universe cosmology". What best fit is that? From P99 or from
      this paper (which implies iterating)

    2.5: typos in the parameter sets - left brackets are square, right
      brackets curved

    3.0 "That the low-redshift SNe are too blue indicate(s) that.." What
      does too blue mean? Not consistent with 0 extinction? bluer than the
      high-z ones?

    ----------------------------------------------------------------



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri May 02 2003 - 07:44:34 PDT