First Round Edits from Comments

[jbae11]

First Round Edits from Comments.
#3

[jbae11]

@gwenchee let me know what you think. If you like it, we will ask prof.Huff for review!

[gwenchee]

I made some more edits to the current draft and pushed to the jbae11 master branch. Is there a reason why in section 2.3 Analytical solution, you didn't include the fuel fab facilities? If no, i can add them. @jbae11

[katyhuff]

I was hoping for a much more complete document than this. Many grammatical errors remain, the discussion is sparse, there are many placeholders ([insert uncertainty]), and the document relies far too heavily on code examples. Please go back through this completely and try to arrive at a complete, camera ready document. For specific comments, you are welcome to drop by my office. Generally, my comment is this: if you remove the code examples from the document, the document makes no sense at all. Rewrite this document in such a way that the code examples are illustrative, referenced by the text, and not essential to the understanding of the tests.

Other comments:

• eradicate the use of the word "would"
• The tests are not appropriate for an itemized list (a list shouldn't span multiple pages... it should be a part of a sentence). Consider subsections or paragraphs for each. OR, if you must use a list, list the main purpose of each test in a single line, then discuss the details of each test elsewhere (e.g. in subsections)
• The grammar is in need of a re-read (Weird phrases like "The method to how" will become obvious if the document is read aloud by the authors.... )

[katyhuff]

?

[katyhuff]

Again, I'm not the PI. Anthony is the PI. I'm the co-PI. Please just list me as last author instead.

[gwenchee]

@katyhuff The report is ready for your review.

[katyhuff]

Thanks! I'll look it over asap.

[katyhuff]