Re: GSC 00279 00321 paper

[aah@nofs.navy.mil]

Some comments on Michael K.'s paper:
  You need to quote a source for the astrometry, and provide
errors.
  With only a handful of minima, I doubt the period determination
is accurate to 0.000001d.  You at least need to quote an error on
this value.
  At 11th magnitude, it should also be a 2MASS star; you should
provide the cross-identification to 2MASS.  In fact, use Vizier
and make sure you have all the cross-references you can.  It helps
the Simbad people enormously when trying to catalog your new observations.
  I admit I have not followed Michael R.'s pipeline very carefully,
so the question to Tom/Michael is whether the photometry has been
transformed.  I presume that the frame zeropoints are set by Tycho2,
with Bt/Vt converted to V,Ic through some means?
  I presume you will convert this file to .tex or .html sometime?
  Another reference, perhaps more relevant to Mark IV, is
    Henden, A., A., "The TASS Mark IV Photometric Survey", 2001, JAAVSO 29,118.
  I would wait until you see Dirk's photometry before submitting.
A sharp minimum and rounded maximum is not normal for an RR Lyr,
and looks more like an eclipser to me.
Arne