From: Chris Lidman (clidman@eso.org)
Date: Thu Sep 02 2004 - 12:05:00 PDT
Hi Alex,
I'm back in Santiago and I now have some time to go through
your comments. Thanks for reading the paper and thanks for sending
comments.
On Mon, 2004-08-30 at 17:22, Alex Conley wrote:
> Hello Chris,
>
> A few minor comments at the deadline (version 1.7):
>
> First, I think it's a good paper. I'm glad to see some
> information about how we classify spectra getting out
> there.
>
> My comments are pretty minor:
>
> a) For some reason some parts of the text appear to be in
> bold text, both on the screen and when printed. For example,
> in the last paragraph of section 2.1 the words at and
> candidate in
> 'a prefix, which indicates at which telescope the candidate'
> are mysteriously in bold. So are the first few paragraphs
> of section 3.1.
>
I answered this one in an earlier e-mail.
> b) Saul is now a professor in the physics department, so
> should have the affilmark 8 added in the author list.
>
Done. I've cc'ed Saul and Tony on the e-mail so they know that this
change has been made.
> c) In section 2.2, when describing pivot stars, you explain
> that the slit is put through the candidate and the pivot
> star and then moved, but not why it is necessary to move.
> It might be worth explicitly mentioning that you are moving
> to the parallactic angle (I assume that is what you are
> doing).
>
The final offset is to make sure that the target is well centred on the
detector. This is not important for FORS1 since the detector is
a single CCD; however, it is important for FORS2, because the detector
is a mosaic of two chips with a gap of a few arcseconds between the
two chips. The offset was designed to ensure that our target did not
land in the gap.
I've edited this paragraph, so that this confusion does not occur.
Rather than adding more detail, I simply rephrased a couple of sentences
in this paragraph.
> d) Second paragraph, section 3.1:
> 'the reduced \chisq\ is always greater that one' -> Replace
> that with than.
>
Thanks for spotting this.
> e) Section 4, summary of results itemization
> How do the final two elements of the list interrelate?
> Any list item that says 'remaining two' pretty much has
> to be the last thing you list. If the unidentified
> emission line object is one of the two, then this needs
> to be more clearly indicated, i.e.: 'Of these two, 1
> has two strong emission lines that cannot be identified.'
>
Yes, good point. This candidate is one of the 11 that have SN light
curves, so I've added this text to that item.
Cheers, Chris.
> Alex
-- European Southern Observatory Alonso de Córdova 3107, Vitacura Casilla 19001, Santiago 19 CHILEPh. +56 2 463 3106 FAX +56 2 463 3101
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Sep 02 2004 - 12:05:27 PDT