Wording of notebook 1.2 question

[thuiop]

At the end of notebook 1.2, there is the following question

Looking at the LIGO-Livingston data in the time domain, the peak amplitude of the gravitational-wave signal of GW190412 occurs at the center of the figure, that is, at approximately 5 seconds from the start of the segment. This peak is undetectable above the background noise by the eye. Plot the data for the LIGO-Hanford and Virgo detectors around GW190412. Looking at your new plots, can your eye identify a signal peak? You can use GWpy or PyCBC.

This has been confusing for some people, as the question seems to ask you to identify the signal with your eyes, whereas the intended answer is to simply say that you cannot. This could rather be formulated as "Does the signal stand out from the background in these detectors?" or equivalent, which makes it clearer than a negative answer is possible.

[martinberoiz]

IMHO since this is the first encounter with GW data for many (most?) participants, asking whether they can see something they never have encountered yet, seems too much. (Can you see it? I don't know, I don't even know what I should be looking for)

I would not even ask that question, and simply say "The signal still does not stand out from the background noise".

[thuiop]

If we still want to ask them to do something, it could be "check that the situation is the same for the other two detectors".

[martinberoiz]

Oh, I thought this was more of a rhetorical question on the text, not an actual question to be answered. @thuiop your suggestions are more suited then.