[Clascomment] OPT-IN: Near Threshold Neutral Pion Electroproduction at High Momentum Transfers and Generalized Form Factors

[Enzo DeSanctis]

I have the following esthetical comments.

Page 1, lines 20-21: ‘This was the first of the low energy theorems (LETs) to appear …’ -- > ‘This was the first of the LET predictions to appear …’. You have already defined LET on line 17.

Page 1, line 22: ‘The predictions of this LET were …’ -- > ‘This LET predictions were …’

Page 1, line 55: ‘These soft-pion theorems of LETs …’ -- > ‘These LETs …’

Page 4, fig. 2(a): change TOF in SC. Here we give the detector’s name (CC, EC, etc.) and not their function (PID, TOF). This happens also in Fig. 2 (b). Moreover, it would be convenient to write R1, R2 and R3 also there.

Page 5, line 272: I think convenient to add a short description of Fig. 4, as it is done for Fig. 3 (see lines 247-253, on page 4)

Page 4, line 282: -- >’… described in previous works’, use the plural as we refer to two papers.

Page 4, 298: -- > ‘… of photo-electrons is <N_phe> < 5.’

Page 6, Fig. 5, caption: -- > ‘Electron \phi_e distribution for CLAS sector 4 for p_e …’

Page 6, Fig. 6, caption: -- > ‘Proton \phi_p vs \theta_p distribution for CLAS sector …’

Page 6, line 327: l, P, l’ and P’ were already defined on page 2, lines 139-140

Page 6, line 346: ‘… of the incident and scattered …’ -- > ‘‘… of the incident or scattered …’

Page 6, line 351: E and E’ were already defined on page 2, lines 139-140

Page 7, Fig. 9, caption: -- > ‘… the elliptical cuts of Fig. 8 (a) …’

Page 7, line 393: ‘world data …’ -- > ‘world-data …’

Page 9, line 497 and in Eq. (25) use a different symbol for the total charge. Q is used for the photon virtuality

Page 9, line 502, I would prefer writing ‘ … \sigma = \sigma_{meas}(1-R), were \sigma is the corrected cross section and \sigma_{meas} is the measure …’

Page 9, line 505: ‘The second correction comes …’ -- > ‘The second correction (the empirical overall normalization factor) comes …’

Page 10, line 610: here we give the Q^2 range 2-5 GeV^2, while in the abstract we give 2-4.5 GeV^2

Page 10, lines 623-624: I don’t think correct to give an average \chi square, it is better quoting the range of values.

Page 12 – 13, Figs 14, 15 and 16: one should say that the values of Q^2 (on top of panels) and of W (on right side of panels) are central values of the bins.