Comments by Nikhef on LHCb-PAPER-2014-035
"Observation of overlapping spin-1 and spin-3 states at
               mDbar0K- ~ 2.86 GeV/c2"

As a general comment we would like see information about the mechanisms
that can produce high spin D states both in Bs-decay and in 
inclusive production at electron-positron collisions.
Especially as we claim that not only our data, but also the earlier
data include spin-3 states.

In detail:

Title: 
- "overlapping spin-1 and spin-3 states" is a bit technical for PRL. 
Can't we write the DsJ(2860) is a degenerate state of spin 1 and 3?
- "Overlapping" suggests that more than just accidental occurrence of several
resonances at the same energy is going on.
An alternative title would be "Observation of spin-1 and spin-3 states in
the m(Dbar0K-) resonance at 2.86 GeV/c2."
- Replace "Therefore" by "We conclude that".
- Remove ", and the first time that any spin-3 particle has been seen
to be produced in B decays", as this is already included by the preceding
statement in this sentence. Also "any" and "been seen to be produced"
is considered ugly by us.
- Replace "are measured, giving the most precise determinations to date"
by "are measured with the highest precision to date".

Line 90:
The "particle misidentification probabilities for the wrongly identified 
particle" are always 100 \%. Please, reformulate.

Line 100: 
Replace "\B candidate" by "\Bs candidate".

Lines 102-3: 
This sentence comes too early. 
It's not clear what is integrated (though easy to guess).

Figure 2 : 
Add "white" in "a horizontal white band".
There are more horizontal bands.

Line 111: "peak-to-peak" is mysterious and undefined.

Line 115: 
Use "\Km{}\pip" for "Kpi".

Line 122: 
"lineshape" is misspelled.

Figure 3 : 
- The components are invisible on a printed version. 
Please, increase the width of the curves.
- Figure 3e could be made a bit wider and less grassy 
  (or maybe d and e could be merged and shown in log scale?). 
- The 2.77-2.91 range could be shown in figure 3e.

Figure 4: 
- A legend would help. 
- The caption mentions only red and green while 
there are (dashed) and (dotted) line styles too.
- What is the cusp at cos(theta)=-0.6?
Can we understand it from the fit-model?

Line 162:
- Why don't we summarize the masses and widths in a Table?
This is much clearer with less repetitions of stat, syst, 
model, and the units. 
- Replace "the statistical, experimental systematic and model 
uncertainties are" by
"the uncertainties due to statistics, systematic without model
dependence, and model dependence are".
The "experimental systematic" uncertainty is well defined above,
but by labeling it (syst) it would be better to call it
the systematic uncertainty for which the model dependencies have 
been taken out to be presented separately.

Line 173:
Here we state that the "previously observed structure is an admixture
of spin-1 and spin-3 resonances". But in line 168 we call it an
"unknown admixture"; that does include "no admixture" as well.

Line 180-181:
Same comment as for the abstract.

Line 184:
Replace "available" by "that will become available".
No samples are available from future experiments.