Further astrophysical validation of the estimated Mira P-A relationship. Maybe split the LMC objects from the galactic plane Miras to see if any strong relationship pops out.
Other papers omit Miras where no trough in the LC was observed; we should compare our inferences to theirs (Hipparcos, NSVS, OGLE & MACHO data, papers in repo).

This will be part of the motivation for the paper and provide a useful introduction

"Censored LS" and "Lomb-Scargle" are not good names; we should be calling them something like:

• Traditional Method
• Ignore-Missing-Data
• Detection-Only Model
• ?

and

• Insane Robot Method
• Flexible Censoring Model
• Non-detection model

Then, once we decide on names, we should put in an issue to flow those names through the document and the figures.

Develop a way to use this for selection of variability, though this may be another paper as it requires development of criteria for finding variability.

I noticed that @joeyrichar edited Section 1 before he had sign-off from me. But no conflicts hit, so all is good. I am now officially handing it back to you.

@joeyrichar the figures you put in the paper look GREAT. Let's keep it up, because we are only days from completion.

In what is currently figure 2 we show a real star, but with flux, flux/20, flux/50, and so on. We should show also the LS periods / models and also our own models for those cases. Hopefully we see a period doubling or tripling...

Write up results for all 2538 Miras that were fit using Censoring LS code. Preliminary figures have been made, but a full write-up needs to be done.
Include comparison to the periods provided by ASAS for all the Miras

Joey:

I just "issued" myself with the to-do items we agreed on way back in August. Can you open issues and assign them for the remaining to-do items? I am also going to set up a "milestone" for this paper.

I am assigning this to myself. I put in notes to self but it needs to get actually written.

@dfm, if you want to re-earn your co-authorship, could you go through the intro and turn the CITE comments into citations? It also requires a bit of digging, because we need to cite some kind of weak lensing paper (maybe by Bernstein? maybe ask Marshall?) that says that you have to work at image level. Maybe there is no clear reference...?