Hi Pieter,
- At several places (abstract, L241, L481) you write that you know the
luminosity approximately. This is strange as we know the luminosity to an amazing accuracy of 1%. Please remove the word “approximately”. In addition, please quote the lumi with the same number of digits everywhere (preferably 2.0 instead of just 2).
*** Anything that has an uncertainty is approximate. If we don't include this word we'd need to quote the number to 1% accuracy along with its error, which is possible, but maybe not necessary.
Please quote the two (or one) digits consistently throughout the paper. Also, the word approximately conveys the message that we did not measure the luminosity very precisely for this measurement, which is not true. In this case, the 2.0/fb number refers more to the data set, rather than the knowledge of an absolute number, so approximately is not needed, even if you do not quote the error everywhere.
237: either remove "respectively" - there is no ambiguity possible - or put commas around it
*** I was asked to add "respectively". Commas are not correct English usage.
Well, it is not needed. But if you insist on keeping it, please move it to another place in the sentence and add commas (which is correct English). The “respectively of the lepton pair” is just wrong. Suggest: “M and pT are, respectively, the invariant mass and …"
254-5: Remove “covering the pseudorapidity range 2 < eta < 5”, since you have already discussed the effective range previously. This sentence only confuses the reader (you do no want to explain why it is defined differently here)
*** This is standard EB text. Here we are describing the spectrometer in general, while earlier we described the effective acceptance for the present analysis. This seems clear to me.
There is no reason to use the standard EB text in case you have just before discussed in great detail the acceptance that is relevant for this analysis. Please remove this, since it is confusing.
273: remove “charged-particle”. This is implied by track.
*** I think this was included by a previous request.
Still it is not needed.
296-8: The clause “where E_ECAL, … respectively” can be removed without any loss of information. The abbreviations were already introduced.
*** I was explicitly asked to include this. I agree with you.
That is two against one already. Just bring it up in the EB reading.
Eq.1: Add comma at the end of the equation.
*** Maybe
Maybe be consistent.
Eq.2: No need to have periods at the end of Kin and Trig
*** In English usage, when you abbreviate a word you put a full stop (not a period!) at the end unless the last lketter of the word is part of the abbreviation (this Prof. but Dr)
That is true, but this rule does not apply to subscript or superscripts in math. E.g. you do no add the period after “acop” either.
327-8: Not clear what is meant with “electron and positron yield reconstructed tracks”. Not needed either. Suggest: “both tracks satisfy the selection requirements”.
*** The electron and positron may not have been reconstructed as tracks at all. The word "yield" tells you that they did.
But it is not correct grammar in its current form. Please come up with a better suggestion then.
354: “apart from the contribution from the leptons”: why not write electrons? Suggest to be more clear: “… after correcting for the additional SPD hits of the electrons”.
*** We are talking about the difference between the muon and electron contributions, so "leptons" is correct.
No. You mean the contribution of the electrons to the number of SPD hits. Muons do not contribute to N_SPD.
397: Remove quotes around probe.
*** Defining a piece of jargon. Quotes indicate this.
If you would do that with all jargon, you can put the full paper in quotes.
431: “statistical error” should be “systematic error”.
*** No, it's included in the statistical error, as stated.
Please then rephrase. This is the systematic section. You could write e.g. that its “statistical uncertainty is already included in the statistical uncertainty” on the cross section.
cheers Jeroen