Comments by Tjeerd on Paper-2014-048:
Precision measurement of the mass and lifetime of the Ksi_b^- baryon

Line 12:
Replace "which are in good agreement" by 
"and their values are in good agreement".
Otherwise it says that the measured "precisions" 
are in agreement with the predictions.

Line 16:
It is not made clear here why we refer to the lifetime ratio of Ksi_b^0 
and Lambda_b^0.

Line 19:
Replace "our understanding" by "the understanding".
as it sounds rather pedantic in combination with "general interest" and
general "benefit" (sic).
In fact the whole sentence "It is also of general ..." should be removed as there
is no following prove for this statement.

Line 21:
Replace "lifetime, measured using ..., yielded values of" by
"lifetime measurements, using ..., yielded values of".
Lifetime cannot be the "subject" that yields values.

Line 25:
Replace "precise mass measurements" by "precise mass values".

Lines 28-30:
We find this difficult to read.
We propose to replace "6.24 ... (6.4 ...) when extrapolating from the measured
isospin splitting M(Ksi- ... (M(Ksi_c ...) [22]" by
"6.24 ... and 6.4 ... by extrapolating the measured isospin mass 
splitting of Ksi and Ksi_c, respectively [22]".
And thus avoid the confusing expression M()-M() (M()_M()).

Line 32:
- Replace "would" by "will" or "may", as it refers to the future.
- Remove ", or their mass splitting".

Line 36:
Replace "normalized to the ... decay" by 
"compared to those of the ... decay".
"Normalized" is the wrong expression, certainly for the mass measurements.

Line 150:
Replace "exponential parameter" by "exponential coefficient"
or remove "the exponential parameter".

Line 160:
Are we sure that we consider only the "systematic" uncertainties?

Line 203:
We miss a predicted mass difference value here, as announced in the abstract
(These measurements are ... consistent with theoretical expectations).