# Difference between revisions of "Instrument Paper Comment"

### LATEX style

1. 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.

### Telescope design

1. 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...

### Focal plane optical coupling

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

### Focal plane sensor and readout

1. 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
2. is \cite{doyle} =\cite{doyle08}? in mkids.tex?
3. MUSTANG2 and NIST have enhanced the ROACH framework to include this capability for \umux\.% \comred{(cite)}.