|
|
Personal Comments |
|
Overall, I was impressed by this article. I was hoping to find some error, some overlooked detail, that would give me something to talk about. Yet to my frustration, all the omissions I thought I found turned out to be omissions in my reading. I was also surprised at the degree to which they cited other research. Many of the distributions they used in their modeling came from other research using N-body simulations and observational evidence. Before I read this paper, I would have expected this to have come from their own research. After reading the amount of work that it took to get the simple conclusions of this paper, developing a model from first principles and observational evidence would be a massive article of at least 100 pages. I now appreciated better the need for journals to communicate the small findings of independent researchers to the broader community. In a way, the process of research seems like either a giant wiki or a large object oriented program. Every scientist working on a small, granulated part, which then allows higher order work (like this paper) to be written on those foundations. The other important thing this project taught me about journals is that they take patience and time to read due to their density. If one was content to scan, the abstract is then all that would have been needed. I really appreciate the logical structure of this journal article, which I believe is representative of the whole. As far as it relates to classroom topics to published research, this project was rather helpful. The book provided over decade old information on gravitational lensing, this article allowed me to take that basic introduction and expand it to the cutting edge. It managed to convince me that what we learned in class is actually relevent to modern research. Overall, this was a good project. |
|
|
|
Last
changed:
