Looks at editorial/figure comments from Julie Marentette and Andy

[robynforrest]

See email from Julie and Melissa Andy says he will send us some comments

[andrew-edwards]

Awesome job everyone. Having the document so polished made it easier to read through than usual. These are all very minor and editorial (except one marked * in the Appendix that's a clarification, but even then it's small). These are based on the revised WP submitted for the meeting. Great job eagain.

Abstract:

• [x] No need to define acronyms that aren't used again in the abstract (adds clutter, and I think CSAS will get you to remove them anyway): TACs, ITQs, MSE.
• [x] Also DFO is 'Fisheries and Oceans Canada' (someone else noted that), and should be in first paragraph.
• [x] Paragraph 4 - are the probabilities for 'each and every year'? You had that clear phrasing later somewhere (e.g. p7).

Main text:

• [x] page 4, last para: fix @gplot reference, also mention that it's a package (not the actual synopsis)?
• [x] p7, last para, 'such aboriginal' to 'such as aboriginal'.
• [x] p9, para 1, define AIC
• [x] p12, para3, missing .
• [x] p13, eqn - technically you might want to use I(Bt > 0.4 Bmsy) where I(.) is the indicator function (0 if the condition is satisifed, 1 if not). But up to you - it is kind of explained in the text anyway.
• [x] p15, para 3 'replicate Best' missing .
• [x] p15, para 3 remove 'as in', or do ref as ICES (2016)
• [x] p16, para-3 (3 from bottome): another chance to ask CSAS to have electronic appendices for code. I think I've asked in the past....
• [x] p23-24 - no edits, but yes! I kept trying to make this point at the interim-year assessment meeting but wasn't sure people got it. Very easy to have conditions that will unnecessarily trigger interim assessments. People weren't keen on closed-loop simulation either. Thank you!
• [x] p29 I wonder if it's easy to put a gap between the two left-hand panels in these sorts of plots. For example Figure 10 it looks like the red and green lines join up.
• [x] p30 Any reason this is 95% when the previous was 90%. Worth being consistent (don't worry too much though)?
• [x] p31 Caption: It's F/Fmsy v B/Bmsy. Maybe add 'for a single MP' end of first sentence.
• [x] p35 para 4, line 3, missing .

[andrew-edwards]

Appendix A

• [x] p41, para 3 last line - should t_{c+1} be t_c + 1? Maybe also elsewhere (e.g. end of point 3).
• [x] p41, 1. - seem to have 6 lines within (...).
• [x] p41, line -1: do you use "D" anywhere else? If not then no need here.
• [x] p42, I was wondering by here if it's worth having a table of parameter definitions. You do have Table A.1, but it doesn't have everything. Maybe at least just mention the table here, and that it contains 'major' (?) definitions.
• [x] p42, (A.1) L_a needs defining here (not next line), and a is age.
• [x] p42, (A.2) ....where alpha_W and beta_W are species-specific length-weight coefficients.
• [x] p42, line before (A.3) - m -> m_l
• [x] p42, (A.3) the exp(- ln 19...) term could be simplified to just \frac{\theta_{l50 - 95}}{19(l - \theta_{l50})}, then simplify the full fraction further (avoid the double fraction), but I'm thinking the way it is more clearly indicates where it's coming from? Also maybe explain the 19 factor?
• [x] p43, Clarification (A.7) Please clarify that (I think) N{y,a} is the numbers at age a at the beginning of year y. Also (A.8) for biomass. I'm pretty sure everything is calculated at the start of years, because of the fishing component in (A.13). [I got a bit confused because (A.7) differs slightly to our POP type equations, but only because instead of \epsilon{R, y-1} we would have \epsilon_{R, y-1}. Turns out that's just a definition difference which is fine.]. Update I've just noticed that you have \epsilony in (B.10), so maybe \epsilon{R, y-1} in (A.7) should be \epsilon_{R, y} (or just simply \epsilon_y if you don't have other \epsilon's, and for consistency with B.10).
• [x] p44, (A.14) F_{y,a} definition, maybe add 'during year y'.
• [x] p44, (A.17) Presume that $\log_{2^{0.05}}$ should be $\log_2 0.05$
• [x] p44, similarly for (A.18), (A.22), (A.23)
• [x] p45, para 2 - I thought 'apical' was a typo (typical?) but you used it a lot, so maybe define. I don't think I've ever heard that term!
• [x] p48, A.5. B^* etc. are commonly used for equilibria, rather than B^e. Though I think you might be sticking with Tom's notation.

[andrew-edwards]

Appendix B

• [x] p45, last para: modeled -> modelled

Appendix D

• [x] p68, (D.2). Shouldn't it be \sum_{i = y-21}^{y-1}? Similary for (D.3). Though I think what you have is correct if $C_i$ is the catch in year $i$ where $i$ goes back in time ($i=1$ is last year). If so then maybe just clarify the definition here (and that $C_i$ is only defined that way here; i.e. $C_y$ elsewhere is for true year $y$). Might be simpler to try my summation suggestion.
• [x] p69, (D.5) yr -> y

Appendix E

• [x] p79, para 3 - mention Figure E.2 with E.1 (else figures are not referenced in order)
• [x] p81, 'centred' -> 'divided' (more specific)? (Should it anyway have been 'centered'?)
• [x] p85, E.4 point 1 - 'importance' - not quite clear what that means here.
• [x] p115, I did wonder if you need a conclusion regarding the MPs? Just to tie it all together (while not actually providing advice).

That's it. Hopefully nothing too major, I think they're all pretty easy, and are just suggestions.

[robynforrest]

Thanks for adding these as a GitHub issue Andy!

[seananderson]

Thanks @andrew-edwards! Checkboxes and all for that feel-good to-do-list-checking goodness.