Hi again,

Here are my comments. Any volunteer?

Cheers,

Patrick

==========================================

Dear Giulia, Vanya,

Here are a few comments on the nicely written Y paper

Physics: I am not fond of systematics being put for "fit range". They tend to double-count the statistical uncertainty. If you find something consistent, don't count is, if not investigate (that was the case for the exclusive Upsilon paper). Also, it's not clear which effect the use of sPlot is catching.

I hoped I would find all mass fits for all bins in the ANA but did not (please add them). Have you visually inspected them all? The last Pt bin at 4<y<4.5, which has low stats: how correlated are the uncertainties of the 2S and the 3S? Do you take it into account when doing the ratio?

L.4: partons, providing
L.5 and 6: replace one of the "available" by a synomym
L.7: Why the small space in NRQCD? Generally
L.22: there's no question above. puzzle?
L.26: and so? You should write here that we do not distinguish directly and feed-down bottomium. It seems this standard paragraph is missing.
L.28: 2.76, 7 and 8 TeV
L.33: you use data, not 1/pb. -> using data corresponding ...
L.36: when going -> between
L.88 to 108: It's not always clear when you man "any" Upsilon or an unspecified Y(nS). For instance N(Y->mumu) in eq 1 means the same as N(Y(iS)->mumu) in eq.2. Then you say N(Y->mumu) in eq 2 has the same meaning as in 1, but there is no such quantity. I suggest you always spell out nS.
Eq.1: It's a neat idea to use the square as index (is that what you do?), but this character is often used by applications to mean "I don't find this special character", so I would avoid it. My first impression was that miss some font. I suggest \text{bin} instead.
L.105: remove event
Fig.1 caption and many more: you have some non standard space after TeV. Put a normal space. 4.0 -> 3.5
L.119-126: All sentences are built as "spam is good while the parrot is dead". Please rephrase some.
L.141-4: was -> is. were -> are (2x)
L.152-3: I don't understand how you do this.
L.155: high statistics is jargon
L.156: imperfection
L.172: which effect? There's no effect being described here. You mean differences between data and simulation?
L.185: how correlated are the 0.65% precisions at 7 and 8 TeV? Do they cancel in ratios?
L.200-202: In the J/psi paper they give a table to show the effect. Is that an option here?
L.217: CSM is undefined (CS is)
Fig.2: we usually put labels at the right. Why don't you use the Lafferty prescription here?
Table: you seem to stick to the rule of how many digits should be shown, but in some cases that makes little sense. Like 0.357\pm0.031 could be aligned with the other ones.
L.248: This sentence needs a rewrite. A rise wrt what?
L.258: what is "standard quarkonium"? and hybrid?

Acknowledgements: I suggest to start with thanking the people who provided predictions (is this being what's in literature?) then _also_ thank those with whom you had discussions without repeating anyone.

Fig.6: here too, there's strange spacing after (top) and (middle). Why don't the vertical axis labels align at the top?

Ref. [17] is there anything in the thesis you need that is not in [16]?
Ref. [47] and [49]: is there anything you need that is not in [48]?

Cheers,

Patrick

On 06/08/15 09:14, Patrick Koppenburg wrote:

Subject:	First circulation of publication draft for PAPER-2015-045, Studies of forward production of $\Upsilon$ mesons in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ and 8 TeV
Date:	Wed, 5 Aug 2015 15:36:40 +0000
From:	George Lafferty <george.lafferty@manchester.ac.uk>
To:	LHCb General mailing list <lhcb-general@cern.ch>