From: Isobel Hook (imh@astro.ox.ac.uk)
Date: Fri May 02 2003 - 09:55:56 PDT
Hi Rob,
Here are the rest of my comments. Ones marked with "*" should be fixed
before submission (all should be very quick to do).
Cheers,
Isobel.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
caption to Fig 5: say that subset 1 is used for the third row.
4.2 first paragraph: "using their template fitting data". It is not
clear what this means. How about saying " using their fitted peak
magnitudes" or something. Need to make clear that you're not fitting
their lightcurve points from scratch.
I withdraw my previous comment about the Hawkins ref. I see it's
E. Hawkins, not M. R. S. Hawkins.
Section 4.3 onwards has many typos and spelling errors. (e.g. the
format of the +/- errors on w, "constat-w" models etc). Please run
spell check and read it through again.
5.1 typo: "Methodologices" (great word!)
* 5.2: in the last sentence the crucial number is missing. "The value
of w gets larger by 0.0;"
5.3 I find it a bit odd to use the difference in extinction corrected
to non-corrected fits to derive the systematic error from
extinction. Especially since the shift in results is so much smaller
than the statistical error in both cases. I'm not sure how else to
do this though.
5.4 Typos: "suffering from a significant about of .." (amount)
* "the w=0 value of O_M + O_L" - shouldn't this be w=-1 (otherwise
what does O_L mean?) Or do you mean O_M+O_X?
5.5: I don't like the wording "Thus if anything the Malmquist bias in
the present sample works to enhance confidence..." I think this
sounds as though malmquist bias is fooling us. I would say "Thus if
we were to correct for our estimated malmquist bias, the evidence
for an accelerating universe would become stronger".
5.6: Dust evolution. Where does R_V=1.505 at high-z come from? Have
you just assumed half the value at z<0.3? If so, say so and say why.
5.7: lensing discussion - is 1997ff actually known to be a Ia?
5.9: missing word - "this IS smaller than our statistical uncertainty"
Section 6: missing word - "..to allow an unbiased correction OF host
galaxy reddening"
* Fig 10: the caption mentions dashed lines - these are not there!
* Acknowledgements - do we really want to advertise a nearly-disastrous
search run and repeated disk problems? May not be good for future time
allocations..I suggest you thank these people profusely but don't go into
details!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri May 02 2003 - 09:56:03 PDT