> >> In the caption to Fig.1 is would be useful to indicate which is the
> >> projected major axis.
> > 
> > We have now added "The projection here is assumed along the line-of-sight
> > to the observer." in the caption to Fig.1 on page 5.
> 
> My point is that if it is exactly face on there is no line-of-sight
> magnetic field. In order to have los field, there must be some tilt
> relative to the plane of the sky, and a corresponding line of nodes which
> would correspond to the observed major axis. The caption or the figure
> itself needs to indicate where the major axis/line of nodes is.

Sorry, yes, so now we wrote "The inclination $i$ is the angle between
the $z$ axis, indicated in the top left panel, and the line of sight.
Only when $i\neq0$ can one see the RM signature as sketched in the
bottom panel."

> >> Considering the central role of the alpha effect and the necessity for
> >> ARAA articles to be accessible to general readers, the article needs a
> >> brief section explaining what the alpha effect is, both mathematically
> >> and physically. The best place may be here, in between the current
> >> sections 2.3 and 2.4. Presently, the Roberts flows are introduced in
> >> the text box, and then eq. 9 states without explanation that the mean
> >> EMF contains a term linear in B. Novice/general readers will find
> >> themselves puzzled by this.
> > 
> > We have now added a new text box on that page (page 9).
> > 
> 
> This is very helpful. It may be useful to state before the equation
> that the mean magnetic field is assumed to be weak so that there is only
> the u cross b term.

In general, there would be a Ubar x Bbar term, but we ignore here Ubar, so
in the box on page 9, we have now added "and ignoring for now mean flows
such as the galactic differential rotation" and in Section 2.6, we have
written "Astrophysical dynamos often have strong shear, so there is an extra
UxB term on the right-hand side of Equation 7, but"

> Also, I think there is a typo (self-excited solutions lambda>0 would
> require alpha > eta k for the dispersion relation as written).

Yes, thanks! It is now corrected.

> >> On page 14: Is there a typo here? Should the gamma be a lambda?
> > 
> > Yes; we have now corrected it to "$k_\eta=\sqrt{\lambda/10\eta}$."
> 
> In the version I have, it has 4/15 rather than 1/10

Yes, the 4/15 in the text is correct; see https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.08717
where we say that the gamma in Kulsrud & Anderson looked is 3/8th of
the actual growth rate.