Hi,
My comments on the paper. I find it a well written paper. I only have a few comments:
General: - Author list: this needs to go in the back now. - Style: there seems to be additional spacing between the paragraphs. Not that I mind, but maybe check with the EB rules. - Detector section: I think this needs updating from the template. In particular l.43. - When a reference to a Figure appears at the start of the sentence, you need to write “Figure”, otherwise “Fig.” (see l.166, l.203) - Avoid “reweighting”, just write “weighting"
Specific: - l.12: P-wave -> $P$-wave (the P is also in italic later on in the sentence. - l.12: “, governed by the mixing angle” -> “with mixing angle” (In this way you avoid the repetition in the construction “resulting from mixing of ..., governed by the mixing angle”. Note to remove the comma.) - l.59: Kaons -> kaons (lowercase) - l.59: The decay description is wrong. The D0bar should be D0. - l.81: Remove the value of the phi mass. Anyway it is given with too many digits (compared to the 12 MeV before). Everyone can look it up in the PDG. This number will not change with more significant digits then the 12 MeV mass window that you are using. - l.86: psi -> J/psi (for consistency with the rest of the document) - l.110: signal and background yields (add yields or similar). - l.111: remove respectively. Avoid excessive use of respectively. In this case there is no ambiguity, so it should be removed. - l.113: branching fraction ratio -> branching ratio (although branching fraction ratio is not incorrect, branching ratio is more than widely used for this). - l.119-120: “...known to be …, … measured to be….” -> remove both. Just say "the branching fraction is B(bla) = xxx". Right now it sounds as if there is a difference between the two branching fractions from the PDG (e.g. that one is measured and the other is not measured, but everyone just knows it is so much). - l.132: Why do you have a double Crystal Ball with the tail on the same side? I seriously doubt that this is needed. A Gaussian plus Crystal Ball should be enough. Surprisingly enough, this choice seems to give a relatively large effect in the systematics, which I do not understand. - l.138 and l.141 and l.167: cross-check channel -> calibration channel - l.179: “data and simulation, data-driven corrections” (add comma and hyphen) - l.186: "This is corrected for by reweighing...” -> “These are corrected by weighting” - l.194+243: “reweighted” -> “weighted” - l.203: "Therefore,” (add comma) - l.239: Remove comma and write instead “in”
Cheers Jeroen
On 26 Jun, 2014, at 17:07 pm, Tjeerd Ketel tjeerd@nikhef.nl wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2014, Tjeerd Ketel wrote:
Dear colleagues,
Bfys Meeting Friday 27 June at 9:30 in N328 and Vidyo
9:30 - 9:55 Staff meeting (only permanent staff)
10:00 - 11:00 Discussion and comments on PAPER-2014-030 "First observation of the rare decays B+ to K+ pi+ pi- mu+ mu- and B+ to phi K+ mu+ mu-". Link: https://cds.cern.ch/record/1709122 Deadline: 27-Jun-2014 I propose to cc comments to this paper in advance and at the meeting we decide which comments to be posted at the end of the day.
The material can be found at http://agenda.nikhef.nl/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=2876 and will be protected by lhcb, etc.
Vidyo link in Nikhef Bfys Meeting (at Institutes->Nikhef of Friday 14 March 2014) https://indico.cern.ch/event/307385/ protected by PIN 1328.
Best regards, Tjeerd
Bfys-physics mailing list Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics