Review.md

@@ -66,7 +66,7 @@ Remember that `alpha=1.0` posteriors should look bad for these events - they wou
 | GW200202A | Krishnendu | [link](O3b-Results/GW200202A) |  | <br> $`\chi_{eff}`$ posterior is different, do we understand this? <br> <br> I think it will be also good to compare the prior distributions used for LI and Bilby runs to see these differences are caused by the difference in prior. |
 | S191109a | Naresh | [link](O3b-Results/S191109a) |  | <br> Slight difference is observed in the distributions of chirp mass, mass ratio and chi effective in all of these runs. Your comments addressing these differences would be helpful. |
 | S191129a | Naresh | [link](O3b-Results/S191129a) |  | <br> Slight difference is observed in the distributions of chirp mass, mass ratio and chi effective in some of the runs. Upon checking, source frame chirp mass and other spin parameter distributions, tend to agree.  |
-| S191215a | Naresh | [link](O3b-Results/S191215a) |  |  |
+| S191215a | Naresh | [link](O3b-Results/S191215a) |  | <br> A_alpha comparison plots looks okay for alphas between LI and Bilby runs. |
 | S200129a | Naresh | [link](O3b-Results/S200129a) |  | <br> Difference in distributions of A_alpha when alpha = 3 for LI and Bilby runs. |