Difference between revisions of "Instrument Paper Comment"

Revision as of 13:53, 1 May 2017

Please add comments in appropriate section: You can also send comments to Aritoki Suzuki at asuzuki@berkeley.edu

Bunch of \newcommand (and similar) defined after \begin{document} in the cmbs4_instbook.tex, although it doesn't seem to cause any failures, it feels like many of those commands should live in the preamble. See for example the ADS abbreviations. It would be useful to clean up this file to improve readability. I think it generally makes it easier for people to contribute to the document.

The beginning of section 3.6 has a long, useful introduction. Sections 3.5 and 3.7 are much more terse. I kinda liked the 3.6 intro...

The hyphenation usage is still a mess: band-width, bandwidth, band with, is one example, but there are many more.
The use of the oxford comma is inconsistent
Is it “a” with bandwidth ratio (e.g., "3:1 bandwith ratio” or “a 3:1 bandwidth ratio”)?

Section 5.5.3 - This section is the first section that mentions technology/production status level; other technologies described above did not include a discussion of PS/TSL. Consistency
is \cite{doyle} =\cite{doyle08}? in mkids.tex?
MUSTANG2 and NIST have enhanced the ROACH framework to include this capability for \umux\.% \comred{(cite)}.

@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 === Receiver optics ===
 # The beginning of section 3.6 has a long, useful introduction. Sections 3.5 and 3.7 are much more terse. I kinda liked the 3.6 intro...
-# 3.3.3, 1st paragraph: "Teflon has a higher frequency cuto and..." -> "cutoff"
-# 3.3.3, 1st paragraph again: "Nylon has a lower frequency cutooff but..." -> "cutoff"
-# 3.3.3, 2nd paragraph: BICEP3 in 3rd sentence should have small caps for 'ICEP' -- is there an alias for that?  Not critical, but here and there in the whole doc BICEP doesn't have small caps, perhaps a search and replace would be nice
 === Focal plane optical coupling ===