Hi all,

I agree with Jeroen that in many places sloppy language is used. We should note that some ironing out is needed.

A few more comments on my side (I do not repeat the ones Jeroen already has).

general:
- You systematically write "the electron and the positron" but in some occasions you use "electron" to stand for both. For instance L.380.
- I miss a section explaining bremsstrahlung correction. It is not clear if the numbers you give in Section 3 are before or after correction.
- You could add many plots in additional material that would be useful for talks. A mass distribution for instance, but also some more you have shown in the approval talk.
- You use pseudorapidity and rapidity interchangeably, which is correct at large momenta, but give limits 2<eta<4.5 and the say the efficiebcy is zero above y_Z>4.25. What do you do with Z between 4.25 and 4.5?
- Cite the relevant Atlas and CMS papers.

footnote on title page : the author list should be at the end but is not.
L214: is 2<eta<4.5 a kinematic range? I would not put [1] here.
L220: Z->mumu is not "straightforward". Rephrase.
L224: different _sources_ of systematic (else it could mean different magnitudes)
L230: in the tracking we measure momenta, not energies. Else it could be understood that we use the calo to determine the electron energies.
L234+: I would prefer \frac{\tan...}{\cosh...}
L237: if you keep respectively put commas.
L242: "sqrt(s)=7 tev analysis" is jargon. It's not the analysis that is at 7 TeV but the beam CM energy. Rephrase. Same for "measurement... being" that is also not at 8 TeV (you measure a cross-section, not an energy).
L242-246: This sentence is too long. Split it.
L242-247: three instances of "measurement". Avoid repetitions.
Footnote 2: You need it already in the definition of phi*, as pt/M does has units otherwise.
L286: "refine the sample of candidates for analysis" is jargon. "to reduce the same size used in the analysis" ?
L289: both the electron and the positron
L300: in approximately 0.7% of the cases (EB rule). But better leave out the approximation. 0.7 already means it's somewhere between 0.65 and 0.75.
L309: events -> candidates
L340: So PHOTOS is not used for FSR in this case?
L345: "which varies significantly with y_Z"
Fig.1 misses "LHCb" (all others too). "(left) y_Z and (right) phi*" (EB rule). Please explain what the vertical error means.
L367: "efficiency --- these"
L370: remove "of differential distribution", that's obvious. "and _on_ the integrated"
L376: Do not call it a photon. Just say it's an ECAL cluster without an associated track.
L377: An efficiency is determined by comparing...
L380: on both the electron and the ECAL cluster.
L387-9: "must be accurate" is not resolved by "Reasonable". Are you happy or not? Is there a systematic assigned?
L394: "acceptance is purely geometrical". Well, yes, that's the definition -> acceptance is modelled reliably in the simulation (that's a fact, not an assumption).
Fig.2: LHCb missing. A pull plot would help to judge the quality. Why "background-subtracted in parentheses? That's quite crucial.
L438 I would remove "assumed to be"
Fig.3: what do you mean with "integration errors"?
Table 2 and 3: error -> uncertainty (twice in both tables). Why are there no spaces around \pm?
Fig.5: what is happening to the Pythia prediction at 0.8 in phi*? Are there suppressed large error bars?

Cheers,

Patrick

On 05/02/15 14:06, Jeroen Van Tilburg wrote:

-- ======================================================================== Patrick Koppenburg LHCb Physics Coordinator Nikhef, Amsterdam & CERN http://www.koppenburg.org/address.html