Re: HST Paper Submission Candidate #2

From: Andy Howell (DAHowell@lbl.gov)
Date: Tue May 06 2003 - 16:56:12 PDT

  • Next message: Robert A. Knop Jr.: "Re: HST Paper Submission Candidate #2"

    Rob,
    The latest version of the HST paper is great! It is much clearer than
    previous versions,
    is very methodical about tests done to the data, and it covers all the
    bases. The amount
    of work you and the rest of the group put into it really shows. I would
    be amazed if the
    referee could point to any faults. Great work!

    My only comments are typos, or minor suggestions:
    p.2 Affiliation #17. I am guessing "C ordova" should be "Cordova"

    p.11, Fig. 1. You might want to point out somewhere that it is the
    templates that
    are mangled to fit the data rather than vice versa. I.e. the templates
    are multiplied
    by s(1+z) and K-corrected, which is why some (e.g. SN 1998as) are
    funny-looking,
    and why the figure is in observed days rather than rest-frame days.
    Even if this is pointed out in other papers, I don't think it is
    mentioned in this one.

    p. 30-31 Sentences straddling the pages says, "In 2.2, it was noted that
    there are
    systematic offsets between the ground-based and WFPC2 two [sic]
    lightcurves for
    the higher redshift supernovae. In the worst case scenario, were that
    systematic..."

    Is there a piece of the sentence missing where you switch pages? Also,
    "were"
    should be "where."

    p. 31, Section 5.6, first paragraph: "biased determination of the
    cosmological parameter
    determination..."

    p. 32, second line: 20 % -- should be 20%

    p. 32, Section 5.7, second paragraph: "magnitudes were decorrelated..."
    should be "uncorrelated"

    p. 33, 5th line: "...not sufficiently well defined, to warrant a more
    detailed..."
    remove comma

    p. 35, first full paragraph: "Preliminary studies of QSO spectra..."
    something is wrong with second redshift quoted

    p. 36, first paragraph says "$ol$" instead of "$\Omega_\Lambda$"

    References:
    "Hatany, Branch & Deaton" should be "Hatano, Branch, & Deaton"

    A block of the references is out of synch with the alphabetical order:
    The order runs "G, H, I, F, G, H J"

    -Andy

    Robert A. Knop Jr. wrote:

    >They're coming out fast and furious...
    >
    >The latest version, only about 11 hours newer than the last one (but
    >which includes a few more comments from Saul and a couple from Greg), is
    >now on:
    >
    > http://brahms.phy.vanderbilt.edu/~rknop/scp/hst/#drafts
    >
    >This one has "Submission Candidate 2" below the title, and as of
    >2003/05/04:10:15 PST it is the latest version.
    >
    >-Rob
    >
    >
    >

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue May 06 2003 - 16:56:14 PDT