Paper: Temperature diagnostics of the solar atmosphere using SunPy (Andrew Leonard)

SolarDrew commented 10 years ago

Submission for EuroSciPy 2014 proceedings.

pdebuyl commented 10 years ago

Dear Andrew,

Thanks for your submission. Your paper is well received and compiles properly. Review will take place here after the 20 august.

Regards, Pierre

stefanv commented 10 years ago

Dear @drewleonard42--I look forward to reviewing your paper over the next couple of weeks!

rc commented 10 years ago

Hi, I will review this paper as an interested non-specialist.

SolarDrew commented 10 years ago

Thanks @stefanv and @rc, I look forward to hearing from you both :)

rc commented 10 years ago

Hi, here is my review:

This work seems to be an important step in moving away from the IDL-based software towards an open source solution, based on SunPy, for solar atmosphere modelling and I like the approach described in the paper. (Just curious: are the authors involved in the development of SunPy?)

Besides the comments above, I have some more general notes/observations/suggestions:

Try to explain all the solar physics terms properly, especially in the results section - I have only a vague notion about loops and lines, and have no idea what footpoints and limbs are - a schematic figure might help a well.
Mark the typical features in the results figures - the textual description is nice, but for me it is like when an experienced surgeon tells me what can be seen on a CT/RTG image of an organ (I do biomechanics) - the expert sees features where an untrained eye sees just different blobs of colourful pixels.
I somehow missed the comparison with other works - you only mention other studies throughout the text - add please, if possible, also some of the "other studies" results.

SolarDrew commented 10 years ago

Hi @rc, thanks for your comments. I'll update this branch once I've implemented your suggested changes. I am a member of the SunPy dev team, yes, but Huw Morgan is not.

@stefanv , you asked me to remind you about this if I hadn't heard from you.

rc commented 10 years ago

@drewleonard42 thanks. It is a really nice topic (and paper!), and making it more accessible for a wide audience would be great.

stefanv commented 10 years ago

Very nice paper--thanks for the opportunity to review!

I left some inline comments. In the output, the noisy nature of the last result seems strange--should some mechanism for smoothing be included?

pdebuyl commented 10 years ago

Dear @rc and @stefanv , thank you for your reviews.

Dear @drewleonard42 , please propose modifications addressing the comments made in the reviews.

Your updates should arrive for mid-october so that the reviewers can assess the update before the end of october.

SolarDrew commented 9 years ago

Hi @rc, @stefanv ,

I've made my corrections and I've replied directly to a few of your comments. Apologies for the delay, I had some issues getting the paper to compile.

pdebuyl commented 9 years ago

Hi @drewleonard42 could you report on your difficulties? Feedback may help to improve our tools.

rc commented 9 years ago

Hi @drewleonard42, thanks for the corrections. The paper is much clearer for me now. Just one more thing (to have the same way of equation referencing in all papers): use

Each DEM is substituted into (:ref:`pixelval`) to produce ...

instead of

Each DEM is substituted into equation :ref:`pixelval` to produce ...

Anyway, I am satisfied :)

SolarDrew commented 9 years ago

@rc, done :)

@pdebuyl , it was mostly my own fault - I'd mistakenly tried to reference a figure using the filename of the image rather than the figure label. For some reason this caused latex to give me error messages for all my figure references, which made it difficult to find the actual source of the problem.

stefanv commented 9 years ago

I haven't read through the paper as a whole again, but given that @drewleonard42 addressed all of my concerns I am happy to sign off on the paper.

pdebuyl commented 9 years ago

Hi all, thanks @rc @stefanv and @drewleonard42 for the updates! The paper is now ready (up to global checks on the proceedings such as layout, etc) and no further action is needed on your side.

pdebuyl commented 9 years ago

Hi @drewleonard42

I see that all of your figures are in png format. While for the figure canvas itself it is a fine format, the printing of the axes and labels suffers from it. Also, the labels for figs 7, 9-17 are very small.

Is it realistic for you to regenerate all of those in pdf? As your paper alone weighs 20MB it would be worthwhile to review the compression for those.

Fig 1 weighs 14MB and its resolution is 4096x4096, corresponding to about 1200dpi. It would be more appropriate to use 2048x2048. I'll do this anyway, so you do not need to do it. This alone brings the final pdf to 8MB, which is still excessive.

Regards,

Pierre

SolarDrew commented 9 years ago

Hi @pdebuyl,

Not a problem, I'll try and get those figure sorted for you over the next few days.

Thanks,

Drew

euroscipy / euroscipy_proceedings

Paper: Temperature diagnostics of the solar atmosphere using SunPy (Andrew Leonard) #30