[Clascomment] OPT-IN: Differential cross sections and recoil polarizations for the reaction gamma p --> K^+ Sigma^0

[Kei Moriya]

Dear Biplab, Curtis et al.,

I read the K+ Sigma0 paper with interest. I think
the results are very nice and show a great deal of
work that has gone into producing them.

I have a few comments below:

p2. left column 1st paragraph: I found many words italicized
in the text, which I found rather annoying, since most of them
did not need to be emphasized, or just from the text you
could understand which way the argument was going.

These include:
   p2. left column 1st paragraph: D13(1895) did NOT significantly...
   p2. left column 2nd paragraph: Out data show that this is NOT obeyed...
   p2. left column 2nd paragraph: in the resonance region if DIFFERENT...
   p3. right column 1st paragraph: To minimize bias, ALL possible...
   p6. left column 1st paragraph: this binning in a single variable generally does NOT...
   p.7 left column 3rd paragraph: an individual particle trajectory did NOT fire...
   p.7 left column 4th paragraph: events where the Lambda decayed OUTSIDE the ...
   p. 8 left column 3rd paragraph: was calculated from the UNWEIGHTED Monte Carlo...
   p.8 left column 4th paragraph: varied very little WITHIN each bin,...
   p.9 left column 4th paragraph: required detection of at least TWO charged tracks,...
   p.13 left column 5th paragraph: indicative of a smaller SECOND peak...
   p.13 left column 6th paragraph: Some interesting LOCALIZED discrepancies...
   p.16 right column 2nd paragraph: Structures that were HINTED AT by ...

p3. left column paragraph 2: the Lambda branching fraction
to p pi- is quoted as 63%, whereas the PDG quotes 63.9%.
Change to 64%?

p3. right column paragraph 2: I think the explanation of
assigning all combinations could be done better with words
rather than saying \"K+ : p : pi-\" etc then defining what
it means.

p3. right column paragraph 2: Maybe a small thing, but
you make a cut on the confidence level at 1%, then in the
next sentence quote ~0.1 (not in percentage).
This could be made more consistent.

p.4 left column 2nd paragraph: same as above for \"K+ : p\"

p.4 left column 3rd paragraph: I don\'t really understand
how the \"lab angle between the Lambda and Sigma0 momenta
(...) was relatively small\". It seems confusing because
I thought at first you meant that when the Lambda decayed
from the Sigma0, it had a very small momentum direction change,
but then it says \"from K+ Lambda/K+ Sigma0 production,
respectively\", so I\'m not following which angle this is.
What is meant by this?

p.6 right column 2nd paragraph: \"Nc was varied from 100, 150,
200, ..., 500.\" Were there many more iterations than these 4
numbers? It just got me wondering, so maybe quote all of the
numbers, or just say that Nc was varied a lot.

p.9 right column 2nd paragraph: the out of plane direction is
said to be \"conventionally\" denoted by y, but this is just how
you denote it, and there are other systems that people use,
so I would get rid of \"conventionally\".

Very nice work, and congratulations on this paper
getting to this stage.

   Kei Moriya