From: Vitaliy Fadeyev (VAFadeyev@lbl.gov)
Date: Fri Jan 27 2006 - 14:20:03 PST
There is some inconsistency between the abstract, which
claims that each of our SN is worth 9 regular ones,
and the body of the proposal where a more modest "six to nine"
estimate is given.
Here are some comments about the rest of the proposal:
- 1st paragraph, "... for those SNe at z >= 1, where the transition
from deceleration to acceleration can be studied". The sentence
looks confused, because the transition actually happens
at lower redshifts. I would say "... for those SNe at z >= 1,
deep in the regime of deceleration."
- Figure 1a is not referenced. The first Figure reference mentions
Figure 1b.
- Page 2, 1st paragraph, 1st sentence. "eiher" --> "either".
- Figure 2c caption: "...as the filled confidence region as obtained..."
Second "as" seems extraneous to me.
- Same caption, "projetced" --> " projected" .
- Words "cycle" and "Cycle" used interchangeably throughout
the proposal. Those probably should adhere to a single
proper style, whatever it is.
- Same for "SNe" and "Sne", as well as "type XX" and "Type XX".
- Fig 5b label: "...run through a low-pass filter to remove
any line widths narrower than that of a SN." Sounds
unnecessaryly suspicious to me. Would rather say "...run
through a low-pass filter to emphasize broad SN features."
- Fig 5b. The precision of spectra redshift labeling seems odd.
We got to know those to a better precision than "1.2" or "1.4".
- Page 9, 1st paragraph. "We use F850LP-F110W and ... to study
intrinsic color for SNe in cluster elliptical hosts..."
Are we budgeting any follow-up time for the field ellipticals?
I.e. does the number "12 SNe" in the following paragraph include
10 planned cluster ones + 2 field ones, and we are just not
spelling this out?
- Page 11, last paragraph called "Justify Duplications".
"The majority of these high-redshift clusters have not been
observed in z-band...." Is this entire paragraph a left-over from
the previous year?
Cheers,
vitaliy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Jan 27 2006 - 14:20:39 PST