search

gammapy / gammaskynet-gamma2016

Gamma 2016 conference poster contribution for gamma-sky.net
MIT License
0 stars 2 forks source link

add tables and figures #3

Closed vorugantia closed 8 years ago

vorugantia commented 8 years ago

I added some figures and tables in this PR. They aren't fully fleshed out but they are a good start.

@cdeil - Can you check the ordering of survey images in the figure and also in the table? Is it okay or should we order them specifically (by name, low to high frequency band, etc.)? Also, I didn't completely fill in the table for survey images. Should we add/remove columns? Instead of frequency band, we could say "radio" or "x-ray" etc. Do you prefer that?

cdeil commented 8 years ago

Very nice, thanks!

I left some inline comments.

You could also already in this PR add short captions for the figures and tables (it should be one or two rows, max three, more detailed info is then in the main text).

And you could already add \ref from the main text to the Figures / tables, so that the relative order of them and structure of the paper becomes clear.

(or leave those extra things to future PRs if you prefer.)

vorugantia commented 8 years ago

@cdeil:

Made Catalog View screenshot bigger.

Fixed table text alignment and removed the vertical line. Fixed naming issues.

See the new image table. For image names, I just copied the names from CDS' HiPS database. However, they seem to be very long and redundant of other columns (e.g. Planck images contain "Color" and frequency band in their names, but that info is already in other columns). Also, since on our website you can change the color map for most images, do we need a Color column? One more issue is the Resolution column, where CDS' HiPS database said the image resolution for all images was the same (except GLIMPSE360 but I looked that one up online). That can't be correct though, right?

Added captions to figures of survey images. Also check out the Vela region figure and let me know if I should change anything.

I'll make one final round of changes and then merge this PR.

cdeil commented 8 years ago

I left some inline comments.

One more issue is the Resolution column, where CDS' HiPS database said the image resolution for all images was the same (except GLIMPSE360 but I looked that one up online). That can't be correct though, right?

Yes, that info doesn't reflect the angular resolution of the survey. At http://alasky.u-strasbg.fr/Haslam408/ it says:

Best pixel angular resolution: 51.53" but that is just the best sampling resolution they used when making the HIPS map. It's a different number from the point spread function angular resolution of the survey.

For the Haslam survey the paper says: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/bib_query?1982A&AS...47....1H

The angular resolution is 0°.85.

Probably we have to go to the paper or webpage in all cases to get this number. I think it's worth it, it'll make our description more interesting to gamma-ray astronomers, if they see other MWL surveys they are interested in, so it's OK if we spend time on making that table good (and selecting some other surveys).

Please split that out into a different reminder issue, I can look up the resolutions later.

cdeil commented 8 years ago

Concerning the choice of "sky region of interest" where you chose Vela.

If you have time, could you make similar MWL image collages for other potentially interesting regions?

Otherwise, 👍 to merge.

vorugantia commented 8 years ago

@cdeil:

I changed the "description" column in the image table to just "band", because all I had for the description column was frequency band. We should probably fill out the rest of that column for the other images, though.

I changed the ordering of catalogs to what you suggested. I also changed the ordering of images to alphabetical.

Reminder issue created to look up angular resolution.

Added 3 more "sky region of interest" photos to the document for now. You can just pick out a favorite and remove the others from the document.

Merging this PR...