search

AnnieJumpCannon / RAVE

The RAVE-on catalog
http://www.rave-survey.org
MIT License
2 stars 2 forks source link

Corrected typos #30

Closed seabroke closed 8 years ago

andycasey commented 8 years ago

Thanks George -- do you want to be a co-author? If so what's your current affiliation?

seabroke commented 8 years ago

Hi Andy,

Congratulations on your paper - it is very interesting! Yes please to being a co-author. My affiliation is:

Mullard Space Science Laboratory, University College London, Holmbury St Mary, Dorking, RH5 6NT, UK

Thanks for introducing me to git and accepting my proposed typo corrections. I have also have some questions and suggestions below:

p.2: "63% of stars in the RAVE–Gaia DR1 overlap sample (≈182,862 stars) are expected to improve with the first Gaia data release” - improve what? distances and/or proper motions?

p.5: "The RAVE noise variances are approximately correct, independent between pixels, and normally distributed.” - are you using the DR5 error spectra? The DR5 paper notes that the noise in individual pixels is not independent between adjacent pixels because of the oversampling by the CCD pixels of the 6dF spectrograph’s PSF. Therefore, they smoothed the error spectra with a 3-pixel boxcar.

p.7 mentions RAVE S/N > 25 but then p.8 mentions RAVE S/N > 30. Is this deliberate and if so, why the difference? p.14: "Comparison with RAVE DR4” - isn’t more appropriate to compare with RAVE DR5 now it is available (internally at least)?

p.14 "this issue has been resolved in the fifth RAVE data release by correcting log g values with a calibration sample consisting of asteroseismic targets” - you could cite Valentini et al. (in prep) here? p.29: Fig. 7 is missing.

p.32: Fig. 11 is not mentioned in the main text of the paper.

p.36: Fig. 16 is not mentioned in the main text of the paper.

Cheers,

George

andycasey commented 8 years ago

Thanks for the notes George. I will fix them up.

Some notes:

The S/N > 25 and > 30 requirement were just to try and construct a good training set, since the two different sources had different overlaps (of varying quality).

I'd like to compare to DR5, but there are still some updates occurring due to the lateness of de-reddened colours being provided (in order to use the asteroseismic calibration).