You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The purpose, documentation, and examples for the code are all well described in the JOSS submission. The code is installable, flexible, and useful for current and future astronomical analysis.
One of the most useful parts is the vast array of extinction models available to the end user, with the ability for contributing more as stated as one of the strengths of the code in the final sentence of the draft. As this is a stated feature of the code:
Would it be possible to add documentation on the format required for an extinction curve that could be merged into the repository?
Or, equally, to add documentation to the meta-classes to enable an end user to easily create "on-the-fly" extinction curves.
I believe that this would satisfy the Documentation Community Guidelines section of the JOSS checklist.
In addition, I have a few minor comments on the draft around language:
Line 6, it might sound better by removing the first instance of word "photon".
Line 30, I believe the units A(lambda) should be explicitly stated here as magnitudes.
Line 36, would it be possible to change "like" to "such as", as the former sounds conversational.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I've not removed the first photon. The reason is that with only the 2nd photon it reads as "absorbing photons out of the line-of-sight." This is not correct. I agree that it is a bit awkward, but it is more accurate.
This is a part of openjournals/joss-reviews#7023
The purpose, documentation, and examples for the code are all well described in the JOSS submission. The code is installable, flexible, and useful for current and future astronomical analysis.
One of the most useful parts is the vast array of extinction models available to the end user, with the ability for contributing more as stated as one of the strengths of the code in the final sentence of the draft. As this is a stated feature of the code:
I believe that this would satisfy the Documentation Community Guidelines section of the JOSS checklist.
In addition, I have a few minor comments on the draft around language:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: