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

[Reinhard Schumacher]

Hi Biplab et al,

I have read your draft paper on \"Differential cross sections...for
the reaction gamma p --> K+ Sigma0\".  In my estimation, it is a very
well written paper: clear, to the point, complete, easy to read, and
interesting.  I give my detailed comments here:

page 3, column 2, line 9: something is wrong with the grammar here.
Use \"...by a given topology were taken to be (delete A) candidate
signal eventS.   Event(no S) CANDIDATES with...\" 

page 7 col 2, paragraph 2, line 1:  the language is too colloquial.
Use \"...that one has EXCELLENT CONTROL OF the signal-background
separation.\"  

page 9, col 1, line 5:  the reference is to the well-known Bevington
book.  However, it is not clear where in that book this particular
equation comes from.  Give the reader more guidance.  Maybe refer to
the section number in the book in the reference.

page 10, col 2, para 3, line 4: make the significant figures match.
You probably mean \"1.81 GeV\"

page 10, col 2, para 4, last line: I would use the word \"significant\"
instead of \"remarkable\".  The former word is more quantitative, the
latter word is more emotional.  

page 11, Fig 8:  The y axis label is too small to read.  Maybe remove
the \"over/under\" fraction in favor of a slash \"/\".  Also, in the
caption, use 1.70 instead of 1.69, i.e. round correctly.  Similar
comments apply to the other figures.

page 12, col 1, para 4, line 1:  I suggest \"Some NOTABLE localized
...\" because the word you want to draw the reader\'s attention.  The
discrepancies are not intrinsically \"interesting\", but they do need to
be \"noted\".  

page 13, col 2, para 2, line 3: you don\'t need the comma.  And in line
4, make sure the number of digits match.  

Page 16, col 2, para 2, line 4: the name is \"Lleres\".  

page 20, caption of Fig 16:  word usage is bad.  Use \"...appears as
the CONVERGENT set of points AS t--> 0...\"

page 21, col 1, para 2 last lines:  poor word usage.  Try \"...which
should BETTER keep SYSTEMATIC UNCERTAINTIES UNDER CONTROL as well.\"

Ref 37: is now published.


Good luck with the publishers.
Reinhard