Re: VLT spectroscopic paper v1.2

From: Ariel Goobar (ariel@physto.se)
Date: Mon Apr 19 2004 - 09:58:42 PDT

  • Next message: Gerson Goldhaber: "Re: VLT spectroscopic paper v1.2"

    Hi Chris,

    a few minor comments on V1.2.

    It appears to me (non-native english speaker!) that in some places the
    language could be sharpened a bit(?). For example,

    P 2:
    "Some of the searches were variations on this theme".
    Maybe a better to say
    "Some of the searches combined the various techniques"

    In the same page, the sentence "...within one to days of the end...",
    words seem wrongly spelled/missing.

    P 3: there is a sudden switch from writing in third person
    "all target were acquired ...", "the grism was chosen.."
    to a part were you write in first person (plural). "We were able
    to verify that the candidate had been acquired correctly". It seems
    a bit disonant with the rest of that paragraph.

    In the beginning of Section 3. "The data were processed in the
    standard way with IRAF" sounds a bit unpolished. How about
    "Standard IRAF procedures were used to process the data".

    A few lines down:
    "...arc frames that were fitted with low-order polynomials". As what
    is fitted are the positions rather than the frames themselves, this
    may be reworded a bit. I have a similar comment about the paragraph
    that follows. "...the sky was removed...on either side of the spectrum" is
    a bit of jargon. Maybe you want to say that you will be referring to the
    underlying background as "sky". Also, shoudn't one really talk
    about the trace rather than the spectrum in the previous sentence?

    P 4: 6150\AA. The Ångström character should be in \rm

    P 5:

    Fig 1. It seems a biy inappropriate to have the 8 SNe with unknown
    redshift as a bin with a z=1.9. Is it necessary to put them in
    the figure at all?

    P 7: typos "silimar" -> similar; "redshifuts"-> redshifts

    p 8: I don't think I learn much from looking at Fig 2. Is it
    really necessary to include it??? Actually, I even fail to
    see what is "clearly shown" according to the text(!).

    Also, Figs 3-42 take a lot of space. Is there really sufficient
    added value includind the finding charts that you think is worth
    the hit in space?

    Another question I had is if we have any color information that
    would support/challenge any of the identifications we report?

    Cheers,
                 Ariel

      

    -- 
___________________________________________________________________
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 Apr 19 2004 - 09:58:46 PDT