Exploring_jwst_transmission #5
Conversation
kelle
changed the title
|
Check out this pull request on See visual diffs & provide feedback on Jupyter Notebooks. Powered by ReviewNB |
| @@ -0,0 +1,7074 @@ | |||
| { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| @@ -0,0 +1,7074 @@ | |||
| { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You should have some sort of introduction, even if it's similar to the other notebook. Each notebook should be "standalone", so don't worry about being having similar content in two notebooks. Consider: what astronomy background should people be familiar with to do this? Summarize and link to sources. What is your goal in this notebook? To compare features of an F-type star to G-type star, so let's state that here.
I agree with [link previously written SpectralDB notebook] :)
Once you work out the rest of introduction, you might want to add something like "For more information on using Specviz and SpectralDB", see the notebook [link]. I'll make sure it gets a link when we publish them all
Reply via ReviewNB
| @@ -0,0 +1,7074 @@ | |||
| { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's okay to link to the other notebook in the introduction, but not throughout your own notebook. Adding links to documentation would be better. https://mast.stsci.edu/spectra/docs/
Reply via ReviewNB
| @@ -0,0 +1,7074 @@ | |||
| { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| @@ -0,0 +1,7074 @@ | |||
| { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| @@ -0,0 +1,7074 @@ | |||
| { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Since we're doing this twice, it's ok to jam everything together into one cell, as long as they retain their comments.
Also, why are we filtering this data for a SNR of >1, but the other data is >2? We should make them consistent or explain the need for them to be different
Reply via ReviewNB
| @@ -0,0 +1,7074 @@ | |||
| { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
About the plots below:
- Since we repeat the plotting steps three times, it might de-clutter things if we turn it into a function for ourselves
- After each plot, there should be a little commentary. Do we see expected spectral features? Does this star look typical for its class? Is the data noisy? You don't need to talk about all of those things, but a small, relevant comment would be good
Reply via ReviewNB
| @@ -0,0 +1,7074 @@ | |||
| { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This was unexpected to me! (a recovering cosmologist)
This 'expectation' should be talked about in the intro, briefly, when you talk about the the end result you're aiming for. Ideally, with links to more information about stellar spectral classes.
Reply via ReviewNB
| @@ -0,0 +1,7074 @@ | |||
| { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| @@ -0,0 +1,7074 @@ | |||
| { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The first line in this cell should say:
If you have questions, comments, or feedback about this notebook, please email archive@stsci.edu.You should not put your email on the notebook; you will get questions from users that MAST should be answering. Obviously this is a great notebook, and you should take pride in (and get credit for) your work. As an alternative, you could make your name a link to your website, if you have one.
Reply via ReviewNB
|
@arjunsavel , Could you give this one more round of polish, taking into consideration Tom's comments? |
Notebook to explore early JWST proposals for transmission spectroscopy of exoplanets. Currently just have the requirements.
NOTE now a notebook comparing stellar types — exoplanet spectra aren't available yet!