Dear proposing authors,

We have the following remarks on this paper.

As general comments:
- We are surprised not to see a reference to
http://arxiv.org/abs/1408.6457, e.g. in line 15.

- The fit in Fig. 2 does not catch the high mass tail of the Bd well.
If we understand right you use a simple 2-Gaussian model for the high
mass side. Is that appropriate? Why not double CB?

- You mention the Z_c^+ as motivation but do not say anything more
about it. Please, add in Section 5 that you tried to include exotic
excitations, but that it does not add any information. 
Also in the conclusions, say you do not need it with
our present statistics.

Line-by-line comments:

Line 5: 
Add "-" in "colour-suppressed".

Line 20-21:
Move "More detailed ... available" to Section 5.

Lines 62-65: 
You mean that the ghost probability is suppressed? 
Isn't there a reference for that (maybe the racking paper)?

Line 67: 
Has IP chi2 been defined before?
More generally, is it needed to give all these cut parameters,
"well separated from any PV" would mean the same.

Line 75: 
We suggest: "The chi2 of the fit, chi_DST^2, which has N degrees of
freedom, is required to be less than 5Ni" (please, insert N and do the
arithmetic)".

Line 80-81: 
Is it possible to fail this cut and pass the DTF one? 
If not, remove this sentence.

Line 83: 
The candidate is rejected if ... mass [24].
Replace "remove" by "reject".
 
Line 88: 
This is a very complicated way of writing P(K)>P(pi). 
Please, rephrase it.

Line 110: 
Remove one "the".

Line 111: 
Capital in "Ball".

Line 118:
It is not clear that "the additional energy release"
accounts for a factor 1.06 in the resolution parameters.
If it follows from simulations, why don't we state that?

Line 122: 
Remove "dimidated" or replace it with a description we can understand.

Line 129:
Replace "Binning the data into hundred bins the probability 
of chi2 is determined to be ..." by
"The chi2 probability of the binned spectrum is ..."
The spectrum shown has probably 50 bins. 
Is the number of bins an issue for the chi2 probability?

Line 137: 
Replace "mesons is also determined to be" by "meson is.
In any case, remove "also".

Line 142: 
Remove "-" in "same sign".

Figure 2:
- Increase the font size of the numbers along the Pull axis.
- Use capital p in "Pull".
- Replace "The residual pull (the ... ) is shown below the plot" by
"The lower plot shows the differences between the fit and measured
values divided by the corresponding uncertainty of the measured value,
the so-called pull distribution".
Or by "The lower plot shows the pull distribution" and explain in the
text.
"Residual pull distribution" is confusing, as the "residual distribution"
is the one without division.

Line 150: 
What do you mean by "but little structure elsewhere". 

Line 157: 
K* is only used for natural spin-parity mesons. 
You probable mean "any strange resonance decaying to Kpi" by
"each available K* resonance or non-resonant component".

Figure 3: 
Add the kinematic boundary. 
Is the Bs mass-constrained to get this plot?

Line 195:
Replace "longitudinal polarization" by
"longitudinal polarization fraction".
It would be a strange definition of the polarization.

Line 278: 
Remove the parenthesis and move it after "value".

Line 308:
Change to "collaboration" in [4].