I-band paper (fwd)

From: Ariel Goobar (ariel@physto.se)
Date: Mon Oct 25 2004 - 10:36:03 PDT

  • Next message: Serena Nobili: "Re: PDF markup of July 21st draft"

    Hi,
    I forgot to CC a mail I sent earlier to Serena
    containing mainly language suggestions. There is one content
    issue that I asked her to check: the chi2/dof in section 6
    seem hard to reconcile with Fig 14.
    Ariel

    ---------- Forwarded message ----------
    Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 19:23:29 +0200 (CEST)
    From: Ariel Goobar <ariel@physto.se>
    To: Serena Nobili <serena@physto.se>
    Cc: Ariel Goobar <ariel@physto.se>
    Subject: I-band paper

    Hi Serena,
    below follow a bunch of language suggestions - hopefully
    some of them will stand the scutiny of an english native!
    Ariel

    abstract:

    "a Hubble diagram including 26 SNe with $0.01< z<0.1$ was constructed."
    --> we cosntruct a Hubble diagram including 26 SNe with $0.01< z<0.1$

     "Adding three SNe at $z\sim0.5$"
    --> two

     "The high redshift restframe $I$-band lightcurves are better fit..."
    --> Furthermore, the high redshift restframe $I$-band lightcurves are better fit...

    Introduction:
    "$\Omega_{\Lambda}$)$\cong$(0.5,0.75)".
    --> should read 0.25

    "previous works"
    --> previous SCP publications

    "...Milky-Way type dust ($R_V=3.1$) the ratio of extinction
    for the two bands is sizable, $A_B/A_I \sim 2 - 3$".

    I am not sure why we give a range in A_B/A_I for one value of R_V,
    is this because of time evolution of color?. In general, I would
    skip the R_V=3.1 parenthesis.

    "...dust for the three $z\sim0.5$ supernovae.
    --> two

    Section 2.2:

    "Only supernovae with at least 6 data points"
                                    ^-- I-band

    there is a ',' followed by '.' after k-corrections

    "A potential source of systematic uncertainties is in
    the $K$-corrections"

    remove 'is' above

    "We have estimated this systematic"
    --> source of systematic uncertainty

    " Although has been suggested"
              ^-- it
    "As in other cases we find a systematic trend in the residuals"
    remove residuals, you have it in the sentence before and I think
    is clear.

    Sectio 2.3:
    " However, of 42 supernovae"
    maybe it is clearer ti say out of here??

    Section 3.
    Footnote 3. again replace 'works' with something else, eg 'analysis'

    Concordance model: sometimes 0.3,0.7 others 0.25,0.75. Let's stay
    with one!

    " The weighted standard deviation would
    decrease slightly to 0.25 $\pm$ 0.06 if the Hubble diagram was built
    on this sample only."

    This is confusing. It is better with the other 2 than 0.25, right? So
    it should be the other way around. Also it is only by reading the fig
    caption (Fig 7) that the reader finds out that the RMS is 0.17. It should
    be written in text, while we are told that effectively it is 0.13
    intrinsic.

    Sec 4.1

    "We assumed 0.05 mag total uncertainty"
    --> estimated

    Sec 4.2

    "CFH-12k"
    --> is it CFH or CFHT ?
    lowercase on MLCS Distance"

    Sec 4.3
    somehow I think the fact that that there is a sepctrum, but we
    have not seen it should be in one paragraph, rather than 2.

    "...extinction with E(B-V) ~0.2"
    --> reddning by E(B-V)

    Sec 4.4
    "Moreover, this SN could also
    fitted by the template of SN~1989B, giving a $\chi^2$ similar to
    the best fit, but with a fitted $I_{max}$ about 0.2 mag brighter.}
    We note that, in the case the time of $B_{\rm max}$ is set to our
    value, the fitted $I_{\rm max}$ for SN~1999Q does not change significantly,
    but a different template (SN~1998ab) is chosen as best fit."

    -->
    Moreover, this SN could also be
    fitted by the template of SN~1989B, giving a $\chi^2$ similar to
    the best fit, but with a fitted $I_{max}$ about 0.2 mag brighter.}
    We note that, in the case the time of $B_{\rm max}$ is set to our best
    fit value, the resulting $I_{\rm max}$ for SN~1999Q does not change significantly,
    but a different template (SN~1998ab) is chosen as best fit."

    Section 5:

    remove "given the very limited statistics available"

    Section 6:

    "weight averaged" should there be a '-' in between?

    ** PLEASE CHECK!!***
    the low chi2/dof in the text seem not to match figure 14!
    ** PLEASE CHECK!!***

    -- 
    ___________________________________________________________________
    Ariel Goobar (www.physto.se/~ariel)
    Department of Physics, Stockholm University
    AlbaNova University Center, SE-106 91 Stockholm, SWEDEN
    tel: +46 8 55378659 fax: +46 8 55378601 
    


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Oct 25 2004 - 10:36:13 PDT