Dear all,

Here are my comments on the "first" paper Observation of the decay Bbar0s -> psi(2S) K+ pi-

Cheers,

Patrick

General: - We are surprised not to see a reference to http://arxiv.org/abs/1408.6457, e.g. in l. 15. - The fit in Fig.2 does not catch the high mass tail of the Bd well. If we understand right you use a simple 2-Gaussian model for the high mass side. Is that appropriate? Why not double CB or Hypathia? - You mention the Z_c^+ as motivation but then do not say anything about it. Please add in Section 5 that you tried it but it does not add any information. Also in the conclusions, say you do not need it witrh present stats.

L.5 colour-suppressed L.64: You mean the ghost probability? Isn't there are ref for that (maybe the racking paper)? L.67: Has IP chi2 been defined before? Generally, is it needed to give all these cut values. "well separated from any PV" would mean the same. L.75: Suggest: "The chi2 of the fit, chi_DST^2, which has N degrees of freedom, is required to be less than five*N. (insert N and do the arithmetic) L.80-81: Is it possible to fail this cut and pass the DTF one? If not remove. L.84: The candidate is rejected if ... mass [24]. L.88: This is a very complicated way of writing P(K)>p(pi). Rephrase. L.110: the the L.111: Ball L.122: We had to check the meaning of dimidated in a dictionary and still do not understand what you mean. L.137: remove also L.142: same sign L.150: "but little structure elsewhere". What do you mean? L.157: K* is only used for natural spin-parity mesons. You probable mean any strange resonance decaying to Kpi. Fig.3: Add kinematical boundary. Is the Bs mass-constrained to get this plot? L.278: remove parenthesis. [4] collaboration