From: Robert A. Knop Jr. (robert.a.knop@vanderbilt.edu)
Date: Mon Feb 21 2005 - 22:35:19 PST
Short form: it's all good. Shoot that puppy off.
Long form: I have a number of comments, listed below from most important
to least important. Feel free to start ignoring them at any time, as I
don't view any of these as anything near showstoppers.
I think that all of the referee comments have been adequately
addressed. Many of the comments I have remaining are due to the new
text not fully meshing with the old text, or things that should be
slightly reworded now that 99Q is out. (Plus a few diddily little
control-freak copy-editor things.)
(1) Last two paragraphs of Section 6. The new stuff is a bit redudnant
with the next paragraph. I would recommend the following wording,
replacing the bold stuff in the penultimate paragraph and the last
paragraph of section 6:
Note that the average measurement uncertainty of 0.05 mag can
be achieved with different strategies. Currently, the
uncertainties on the individual measurements give the main
contribution to the peak magnitude and color uncertainties.
This could be improved either with better measured indivudal
data points, or with better sampling. The latter approach
would also allow us to better identify and quantify currently
unidentified systematic effects which may possibly be
affecting the current analysis.
(2) This is probably not worth worrying about at this point. However,
I'm a little confused about peculiar velocities. At the beginning
of section 3, you assert that z>0.01 are where peculiar velocities
don't dominate the trend. Then, in the last paragraph of section 3,
you say that z>0.025 is where the peculiar velocity uncertainties
are of the same order as the measurement uncertainties. This sounds
inconsistent. Is it? Perhaps a little rewording here can finesse
this.
(3) Section 5, end of second paragraph. Replace last sentence with
"While the best fit in each case is a $\Omega_\Lambda$-dominated
cosmology, the low statistics of the high-redshift sample is
insufficient to draw strong conclusions on cosmological parameters."
Adding that little "hey we win" will further address a referee
comment, and will make the first sentence of the next paragraph more
sensible.
(4) Section 4.4, Paragraph "In the case of SN 1999ff and SN2000fr, this
is quite small." You don't need to say the cases any more, since
99Q isn't in the table. Just say that the systematic uncertainty we
quote is quite small for both SNe.
(5) Section 5, "Note that all SNe have been reported not to suffer...."
Repalce this with "Both SNe have been reported not to suffer...."
(6) It sseems very odd in the penultimate paragraph of section 2 to just
state the S_1 vs S_B result without any comment other than "here it
is", given what you've done with all previous results. (This is a
bolded paragraph.) Is there one more sentence that could be said
here? Gee, it looks like a good match, the dispersion is yadda
yadda?
(7) Paragraph just before equation 2. Say "The solid line represents
the best fit to the data for the concordance model with fixed
$\Omega_M=0.25$ and $\Omega_\Lambda=0.75$." I added "with fixed".
Right now, it is very easy to misinterpret this sentence to mean
that you've fit OM and OL, which of course you would never have
reasonably done with only low-redshift supernovae. Perhaps also
replace "The fitted parameter, $\mathcal{M}_I$, is defined..." with
"The single fitted parameter, $\mathcal{M}_I$, is defined...". This
is all just clarity stuff.
(8) Section 4.2, second paragraph. You have a run-on sentence; it
starts "We found differences with the results published in
Tonry...." Put a perioud after "originally published results."
Start a new sentence with "However, the K-corrections"
(9) Footnote in section 2, kill the comma after "We note that". Also, I
would replace "there are not physical reasons" with "there are no
physical reasons".
(10) Lots of places where you use "high redshift" you should probably
use "high-redshift". You might want to look through the paper for
this.
-Rob
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Feb 21 2005 - 22:35:10 PST