L'Ralph MVIC Liens
==================

Documentation
=============

--> Many documents’ labels contain a description of the mission and instrument that needs
to be updated with appropriate tense and necessary details. "will be located" >> "are located".

file: document/mvic_sis.pdf
--> 2.3.2.2 Calibrated Data:
--> --> units (radiance) are written differently from that described in 2.2 (radiance / (counts/sec))
--> --> Better to explain the associated FITS structure (dimensions, etc.) first in the calibration steps. 
--> --> Better to add header keywords for TDI records (M4TDIx) in Step 4a.

--> 2.3.4:
--> --> 2nd & 3rd lines: redundant expression
--> --> 2.3.4.1: missing acronym “SCLK”

--> FITS Keyword (Page 20): DATE. Does ISO cal mean ISOT format?

--> Table of Contents: Page number is a mixture of Romans and Italics.
--> Missing acronyms: GSFC (p.7)
--> Figure 2-2: 
--> --> Remove Figure 3-1 text in the figure
--> --> What does “R/Y” stand for?

file: document/LRalph_MVIC_Activities.pdf 
--> For the Dinkinesh flyby, would it be possible to provide the region of saturation (at least approximately)?

file: document/LRalph_MVIC_Calibration_Procedure.pdf
--> Page 1 Line 6: Pan’s wavelength range is slightly different from the one specified in Table 2-1 of mvic_sis.pdf.
--> ATsum, XTsum: using more specific keywords regarding “actual” (not “planned”, as the headers have both) summing or at least mentioning this point.
--> Page 3: How can we get the coefficient information?

file: 'document/collection_overview.txt'
--> The Documents section mentions that documents are named in one of two ways, the first descriptive, the second being based on Open Access DOI.  This second is not the case for filename, nor document title.  It then starts to describe what a descriptive case might be, but ends up describing a single case in detail.  Please clarify or correct this whole paragraph.

Suggestions
--> Add the table 2-1 a list of MVIC Channels to the Calibration description
--> Make it clear in the description that which values are in the extensions
“dark subtraction data” and “radiometric coefficients”



Data
====

data_Dinkinesh_calibrated/
--> give unit information in the sci images, as in the overview.txt of data_Dinkinesh_raw.
-->  No error array and quality array found. Suggest adding same extension as lorri: Error ImageHDU, QUALITY FLAG IMAGE, if possible.

--> The version number should be related to the pipeline version, I don’t see any
pipeline changes between these two versions, why is the later image is v3 but the
earlier ones are v4?
--> According to the data label, all data should be v1, and v3/4 are internal
versions. This is confusing.


Labels
======

--> Should double check the following Label Context Reference Mismatches, if they are using the correct target reference LID.  Note there is always the option to not use a reference LID when none other is appropriate, or one may be created if it makes sense:
--> --> 'Space Stare' vs 'SPACE' (urn:nasa:pds:context:target:calibration_field.space)
--> --> --> Affected files: 'calibration/*_space_01.xml'
--> --> --> Note that L'TES uses 'SPACE_CAL' instead.

issue: Image orientation
--> Highly recommend adding the Display_2D_Image (or disp:Display_Settings) for the 'calibration/*.xml' files to make it explicity clear how the bytes are being read and where (0,0) is; currently no where is this defined, and so assumed.

files: 'calibration/*.xml' (data products)
--> Should any of these data objects have units? I don't see any specified.

files: 'data_dinkinesh_calibrated/lei*.xml'
--> Should the Array_3D_Image, Array_3D, and Array_2D objects have a unit?  The raw data specifies in the label "DN" as expected.
--> For the second extension "background", should this be a 3D_Array_Image instead of 3D_Array?


EN Review
=========

lucy.mvic:calibration

*.xml
- Suggestion: to match the context products, change
  <name>MVIC</name>
  <name>Space Stare</name>
  <name>Lucy Mission</name>
  <name>Lucy Spacecraft</name>
to
  <name>Lucy Ralph Multispectral Visible Imaging Camera (MVIC)</name>
  <name>SPACE</name>
  <name>Lucy</name>
  <name>Lucy</name>

collection.xml
- The product in this lid_reference isn't given here. Verify the LID is correct
  urn:nasa:pds:lucy.mission:document:lucy_mission_info
In the 2023.05 review, many collection.xml had a lid_reference to
  urn:nasa:pds:lucy.mission:document:lucymissioninfo



lucy.mvic:data_dinkinesh_calibrated

*.xml
- Suggestion: to match the context products, change
  <name>DINKINESH</name>
  <name>Lucy Mission</name>
  <name>Lucy Spacecraft</name>
to
  <name>(152830) Dinkinesh</name>
  <name>Lucy</name>
  <name>Lucy</name>

collection.xml
- The product in this lid_reference isn't given here. Verify the LID is correct
  urn:nasa:pds:lucy.mission:document:lucy_mission_info
In the 2023.05 review, many collection.xml had a lid_reference to
  urn:nasa:pds:lucy.mission:document:lucymissioninfo



lucy.mvic:data_dinkinesh_raw

*.xml
- Suggestion: to match the context products, change
  <name>DINKINESH</name>
  <name>Lucy Mission</name>
  <name>Lucy Spacecraft</name>
to
  <name>(152830) Dinkinesh</name>
  <name>Lucy</name>
  <name>Lucy</name>

collection.xml
- The product in this lid_reference isn't given here. Verify the LID is correct
  urn:nasa:pds:lucy.mission:document:lucy_mission_info
In the 2023.05 review, many collection.xml had a lid_reference to
  urn:nasa:pds:lucy.mission:document:lucymissioninfo



lucy.mvic:document

*.xml
- Suggestion: to match the context products, change
  <name>DINKINESH</name>
  <name>Lucy Mission</name>
  <name>Lucy Spacecraft</name>
to
  <name>(152830) Dinkinesh</name>
  <name>Lucy</name>
  <name>Lucy</name>

collection.xml
- The product in this lid_reference isn't given here. Verify the LID is correct
  urn:nasa:pds:lucy.mission:document:lucy_mission_info
In the 2023.05 review, many collection.xml had a lid_reference to
  urn:nasa:pds:lucy.mission:document:lucymissioninfo
- Suggestion: add lid_reference to target