[Clascomment] OPT-IN:Differential cross section and recoil polarization measurements for the gamma p --> K+ Lambda reaction using CLAS at Jefferson Lab

[Enzo DeSanctis]

In the abstract, on line 4, I would change to: \'… production angles. They are the most precise and complete measurements to date. Independent …\'
Moreover, I would add at the end a short sentence on the physics output, like as: \'The data could (will ?) allow for independent study of non-resonant production mechanism at all production angles.\'

In the following my locator is page/column/paragraph/line.

1/l/1/7: I think suitable to define here the center-of-mass K^+ production angle, which is defined only in the abstract.

1/l/2/1: drop one of the ‘the’ after ‘measurements of’

2/r/3/7: write ‘A two-track ..’ with capital A.

2/r/3/last-line: I do not understand the <1% confidence level cut. Isn’t it too low?

2/r/3/4: Same comment as before for the 5% confidence level cut.

3/l/4/9: shouldn\'t the lower limit of the sqrts range  be 1.63 GeV, instead of 1.62 GeV?

3/r/3/7: you use CM in the text, but c.m. in the superscripts.

4/Fig. 1: the colors are not well contrasted and then the figure is poorly readable.

5/Fig. 3: the red and black points are not easily readable in the white and black version. Use different symbols.

6/r/3/8 lines after Eq. (12): I would also make available data values on the CLAS web pages.

7/l/2/2 and 3: the forward peak starts to be visible at sqrts values lower than 1.94 and starts to dominate at sqrts values lower than 2.4. 

8/Fig.4/caption: ‘vs.’ --> ‘vs’

13/r/3/7: from Figs. 14-16 I see that the Kaon MAID always underestimates the differential cross section.

13/r/5/8: in fig. 15 the Lambda polarization becomes negative for sqrts >2.4 GeV (not 2.2 GeV). Moreover, the kaon-MAID model is not available there.

14/r/2/9: ‘the Italian Instituto’ --> ‘the Italian Istituto’, without an n in Istituto.

Finally, data points are difficultly readable in all figures containing results and in particular in Figs. 8 and 13. Moreover, in Fig. 9 I would use larger size and open and closed symbols for the two data-set to make them more distinguishable.