Comments from Nelson Padilla (SAC) on weak lensing section of Cosmology chapter

[michaelstrauss]

First of all, this is an extremely carefully written section, I found it very clear and thorough and therefore I only have a few comments about explaining further some details, perhaps illustrating metrics with simple figures, and making some more quantitative estimates to back the weak lensing requirements.

• Page 215, after equation: My impression here is that there is either too much detail when going into the dependence of errors on half-light sizes, or actually too little of it. For example, if this dependence is explained in some detail (one or two sentences) it would make it more clear that it is important and worth mentioning.

• S9.3.3 Metrics: There is a very clear explanation of the spin-2 nature of systematics, and of the general metrics that need to be used with accordingly modified angles related to rotSkyPos and parallactic angles. I wonder whether a plot showing simple examples here would help interpret the metrics as these are presented.

• S9.3.4, 3rd paragraph, remove first sentence, start with "Jee / Tyson (2011) did a study"...

• S9.3.6 end of first paragraph: This section points out the different advantages that come from deep vs. wide observations. Are there quantitative metrics that show the best balance between the two? A plot showing this would give much more weight to the important requirement of a deep 1000 sq. degree survey during commissioning.

• Same Section, end of 3rd paragraph: is there a way to be more quantitative about the advantage of depth over area at fixed volume? The advantages are explained qualitatively in the following paragraphs.

• Same Section, previous to last paragraph page 221: a brief list of advantages of overlap with WFIRST would be a definite plus here.

[drphilmarshall]

Thanks Nelson (via Michael)!

@jmeyers314 Would you mind taking a few minutes to work through Nelson's comments on the WL section and submit a quick PR with a revised version? Thank you! :-)

[MichelleLochner]

@jmeyers314 how's this going? Consider this a friendly prod from chapter editor. :)

[jmeyers314]

Thanks @MichelleLochner -- I'll try to have a look at this tomorrow or early next week. :)

[drphilmarshall]

Thanks Josh! I've pasted in Nelson's remaining feedback into the comments of the tex file, to be considered during v2 development, and will label accordingly. The overlap with WFIRST in the early years is something that needs more work in general.

[jmeyers314]

Hey Phil, I just realized that it seems like I haven't actually merged my fork of this back into origin. What's the procedure for doing that?

[jmeyers314]

Think I figured it out. There's now a PR waiting for somebody to approve/merge.

[drphilmarshall]

Thanks Josh - ill take a look while preparing the arxiv submission!