Re: latest abstract

From: Vitaliy Fadeyev (VAFadeyev@lbl.gov)
Date: Fri Jan 27 2006 - 14:20:03 PST

  • Next message: Eric Linder: "Re: latest abstract"

    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