Final round of ms improvement

[ethanwhite]

• [x] Dave
• [x] Xiao
• [x] Ethan
• [x] Elita

[davharris]

@ethanwhite @embaldridge If I want to make suggestions about manuscript text, is the best approach to open a pull request with a modification chapter1.md?

[davharris]

I think this paragraph needs to be updated in a few ways:

McGill et al. [-@mcgill2007] classified species abundance distribution models into five different families: purely statistical, branching process, population dynamics, niche partitioning, and spatial distribution of individuals. We evaluated models from each of the separate families, excluding the spatial distribution family, which requires spatially explicit data. Specifically, we evaluated the log-series, the Poisson log-normal, the negative binomial, the geometric distribution, and the Zipf distributions. All distributions were defined to be capable of having non-zero probability at values from 1 to infinity.

1) We're not using the geometric distribution anymore, right? 2) Does that mean we're no longer using all four of the non-spatial families? 3) Does the log-series distribution have nonzero mass for all finite abundance values?

[embaldridge]

I'm pro pull request.

[ethanwhite]

@davharris - if I understood things right the PR I merged this morning was just for the first half of the paper, is that right and are you still working on the second half?

@embaldridge - how do you want to run the additional work on editing? You recently made some changes so did you want to have @rueuntal or I work on it next and then do the final round of checks? Whatever route you want to go works fine for me.

[davharris]

Correct

Dave

On May 17, 2016, at 10:26 AM, Ethan White notifications@github.com wrote:

@davharris - if I understood things right the PR I merged this morning was just for the first half of the paper, is that right and are you still working on the second half?

@embaldridge - how do you want to run the additional work on editing? You recently made some changes so did you want to have @rueuntal or I work on it next and then do the final round of checks? Whatever route you want to go works fine for me.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub

[embaldridge]

@ethanwhite , your editing plan sounds good.

[ethanwhite]

OK, thanks @davharris. Let us know when you're done with your go through.

@rueuntal - do you want to take the next round or would you like me to do it?

[rueuntal]

I'd be happy to take the next round.

[ethanwhite]

Great. So @davharris will hand of to @rueuntal, who will hand off to me, and then @embaldridge will do a final round of cleanup. Getting close!

[davharris]

To clarify, should I finish before @rueuntal starts?

On May 17, 2016, at 1:57 PM, Ethan White notifications@github.com wrote:

Great. So @davharris https://github.com/davharris will hand of to @rueuntal https://github.com/rueuntal, who will hand off to me, and then @embaldridge https://github.com/embaldridge will do a final round of cleanup. Getting close!

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/weecology/sad-comparison/issues/179#issuecomment-219801013

[rueuntal]

To clarify, should I finish before @rueuntal starts?

That would probably be easier.

[ethanwhite]

To clarify, should I finish before @rueuntal starts?

Yes, when you're done let @rueuntal know.

[davharris]

I'll basically be ready to sign off as soon as #199, #200, and #201 are addressed and the figures are all tidied up.

[ethanwhite]

Alright. Now that #213 is in we're down to @embaldridge for a final round of edits and #204!