Hi all,

The second paper has an _earlier_ deadline, not later. We should have our comments together on Monday. Here are mine

Physics: L195-201: why do you use the difference between the simulation and the simulation weighted to match the data as systematic uncertainty? That seems overly conservative. Why not reweight the simulation and then take the effect of the uncertainties on the weights to determine the systematic?
L.209: any statement about the significance of that measurement?

General: The introduction needs a bit of work.
Abstract: through the decay chain Ds*-> Dsgamma and Ds->KKpi.
L.19: "analogous" (in what respect?) is unclear here. That is only explained in L.34. Please re-order and specify.
L.24: "decay has". Why statistical?
L.27: CP -> \CP also elsewhere
L.41-42: supports -> is compatible with. We do not "support" the B factories.
L.54: was -> is
L.55: remove :
L.57: X -> $X$.
L.92: the -> any (we presume that's the case. Else explain how the PV is selected.)
L.108: Ds-K(pi) -> DsX (since you defined that) (no dash)
Fig.2: Suggest M(KKpi) rather than Ds.
L.125: Remove "as each other"
L.146-48: "Fully... signal". We fail to understand the meaning of that sentence.
L.170-171: Repeats line 102
Fig.3: The labels are much too small.
Fig.4: Is that figure essential in this paper? It seems more adapted for additional material.
Section 5: Your enumeration for carriage returns and incomplete sentences does not work well (why did you not use description?). We suggest to make it to normal sentences and paragraphs with indents.
L.179-181: MeV/c^2
L.195: Ref. [3]
L.205: systematics -> systematic uncertainty.
Table 1: why is cross-feed in "" in one case but not the other.
Fig.5 would be more appropriate for additional material for talks. Caption : from Ref. [2]. Plot: Draw a line between the 2 R and R* measurements as they are different things. y Label : R^{(*)}
L.213: turns out to be -> is determined to be
L.221: bf -> {\cal B}
L.222: errors -> uncertainties

Cheers,

Patrick

On 25/02/15 22:20, Tjeerd Ketel wrote: