Документ взят из кэша поисковой машины. Адрес оригинального документа : http://hea-www.harvard.edu/~pgreen/refresponse.txt Дата изменения: Sun Dec 14 03:16:36 2003 Дата индексирования: Mon Oct 1 21:23:49 2012 Кодировка: Поисковые слова: ceres

%%
%% REFEREE REPORT:
%%
%%
%% As made clear by the title of the paper and the observational
%% evidence presented, the authors believe that the correct
%% identification of HS1216+5032 is as a physical quasar pair, albeit
%% with one component showing the rather unusual combination of
%% BAL troughs and significant radio luminosity. So far so good. My
%% difficulty arises because a very large fraction of the text, including
%% the bulk of the material that is not concerned with presenting the
%% actual observational data, is focussed on a discussion concerning
%% the implications of HS1216+5032 were it to be shown to be a lens.
%% The problem, as far as the referee is concerned, begins in the
%% Abstract, where something like a third of the (longish) text is
%% descriptive material relating to the interpretation of the object in the
%% event it were shown to be a lens. In my view the Abstract should
%% simply summarise, succinctly, the nature of the observational data
%% that results in the definitive classification of HS1216+5032 as a
%% physical pair.


The abstract has been considerably shortened, and now eschews
nearly all the previous historical detail. We now omit
mention of the evolutionary-phase hypothesis for BALs
here and in the text.

%% The manuscript continues in the same vein. Nearly a full page and
%% a half of Introduction has much regarding BALs and implications
%% for/from lensing.

Removed most of the discussion of dark lenses and cosmology,
and deleted the section on BALQSOs. The contraction
of the Introduction allowed me to removed its subsection
divisions. I moved half a paragraph about BAL/non-BAL pairs into
section 2 (Optical Spectra), since this discussion is required to
motivate the subsequent investigation. Combined Optical Spectra
and Optical Colors into one section for brevity and flow.


%% Sections 2 and 3 then follow and are, overall,
%% straightforward, the new information presented merits publication,
%% although the insight gained into the quasar pair is hardly very great.

I've shortened this, and removed the former Figure 2 (renormalized
spectra and residuals) entirely.

%% The key observational result, the very large flux ratio of the pair
%% evident in the FIRST survey, occupies a bare half page (Section 5).
%% The following two sections are really essentially irrelevant, devoted
%% as they are to extensive discussions of how the BAL and emission
%% line properties of the pair offer no support for the lensing
%% hypothesis. Section 8 is largely relevant and, given the
%% identification of HS1216+5032 as a physical pair, Section 9 would
%% seem entirely appropriate. A final attempt to reintroduce the
%% lensing discussion appears at the beginning of the Conclusions.

I removed all of former-Section 6 (Do the Broad Absorption Lines in
HS1216+5032B Rule Out the Lens Scenario?).

I reordered the sections now to have Optical Spectra and Colors,
IR spectra, Radio, rather than hopping back and forth.

I've shortened the discussion of radio loudness differences,
but left it in with the observational radio result, to put
a final nail in the lensing coffin.

%% If the aim of the paper is to show that the FIRST data, plus the new
%% optical/IR information, results in an unambiguous classification of
%% HS1216+5032 as a physical pair, then a manuscript that is just
%% half the present length would more than suffice.

The paper now totals 5.5 pages, down from 10.

%% Having presented
%% such a clear result, it might be appropriate to present a more
%% general discussion concerning the interpretation of wide quasar
%% pairs (lensing versus physical pairs). However, there is very little in
%% the current manuscript that is new in this regard.

The emission line discussion of former-Section 6, based on new
observations, is relevant to the discussion of the Interaction/Merger
scenario, so has been moved there.

%% While a positive
%% advocate of referencing existing work properly, the very extensive
%% reference list comes about largely because virtually all the
%% discussion concerning the lensing interpretation/implications
%% repeats what is already in the literature. Thus, while a more
%% general discussion following the presentation of the object-specific
%% observational data could be appropriate, there is very little, if
%% anything, new in the present manuscript to justify the inclusion of
%% such a discussion.

Completely removed the former section on Implications for BALQSOs.
(I plan on studying a statistical sample of binary pairs
and turning these ideas into a separate paper.)

References are considerably shorter now that the paper has shrunk.

%% I rather regret having to provide such a negative review but do feel
%% strongly that a radical rethink concerning the rationale and content
%% of the paper is necessary before it would be acceptable for
%% publication in Monthly Notices.
%%
%% A few specific comments of a more technical/detailed nature are
%% included below.
%%
%% Paul Hewett
%%
%%
%% S2
%%
%% The bald statement concerning the presence of a BAL-trough
%% associated with the MgII 2798 emission needs at least some
%% discussion. It isn't at all obvious that "...place it definitively in the
%% class of low-ionization..." is true. It would be interesting to know
%% what Hall et al.s extension of Weymann et al.s BALnicity criterion
%% made of the spectrum.

The referee is savvy in the wily ways of BALs.
I measured the BI and AI for CIV, MgII and AlIII/CIII] and only
CIV yields positive values for either measure. This is now
reported, and I have reupholstered the previous bald statement.

%%
%% S5
%%
%% An error on the Log(R) value is appropriate given the various
%% approximations/assumptions and the importance ascribed to the
%% value (cf the Log(R)=unity boundary).

Have now included (and described in footnotes the calculation of)
a very conservative error of 0.4 (including both photometric errors
and assumptions about continuum slopes), from which the difference is
still 3sigma.

%%
%% Trivia
%%

Corrected all these, and thanks for catching them!