Four remarks from my side:


 L.343+4 [C: The asymmetric error +0.007 -0.008 is not consistent���with the numbers in Tab.2.���(If one takes NB0->f1Jpsi = 49 and NB0s->f1Jpsi = 110 and the errors from the table,���the ratio NB0/NB0s = 0.445*(1 + 0.037 - 0.041) = 0.445 + 0.0165 - 0.0182.���This gives for the ratio of BFs  0.115 + 0.004 - 0.005���and not 0.116 + 0.007 - 0.008, as stated below line 343.)]

*Aside from rounding errors, as you don���t have the full set of digits, you are missing the systematic uncertainty on fs/fd pointed out just below the equation.

AA Thank you! I overlooked the sys.unc. of fd/fu indeed.


 L.9 "seen for the first time" ->���"discovered for the first time"

*I think ���discovered��� and ���first time��� are redundant

AA Indeed redundant. Please replace by "discovered" only.
"Discovered" is a well defined qualification in h.e.p., while with "seen"
it is still debatable if what we see will also be seen by others.

 L.214-215 "Understanding if the f states are indeed explained in the quark model���... to identifying other exotic structures" ->���"Information that the f states are inconsistent with the quark model���... to identify other, exotic structures"

*Prefer as is

AA I still have problems as it is.

I cannot "understand if" a fact is "explained"; I may only understand its explanation.

Even if you mean "if the f states are consistent with the quark model" this cannot be
understood to be "crucial to identify other, exotic structures" without further explanation.
This seems just a play of words to make the f states more interesting than they are.
However, if the f states are inconsistent with the quark model we have identified an
exotic structure and we may identify other.


 Tab.2 caption���- Replace "fractions BF(Bbar to J/psi f1.." by���  "fractions BF(Bbar0(s) to J/psi f1..",���- Replace "the Bbar0/Bbar0s ratio" by "the yield ratio of Bbar0 and Bbar0s���  to J/psi f1 decays".������Tab.2���- Move table to top or bottom of page.���- Replace "Source Bbar0 Bbar0s ratio" by���  "Error source  sigma(BF Bbar0)[%] sigma(BF Bbar0s)[%] sigma(ratio)[%]".���- 3.7 is not the quadratic sum of 1.5.

Made some of these changes already. Hate to put ���error��� after source as will get many comments to use ���Uncertainty��� which is defined in the table caption in any case

AA Indeed "uncertainty source" is better than "error source". 
Please, use "Sources of uncertainties" in stead of just "Source";
there is space enough.
"Source" is not defined in the table caption.